Posted under General
While going through the no humans tag,it occurred to me that we don't have (to my knowledge) any tags devoted to limiting gender.
Suggestion: a no_male and no_female tag,or something similar
Maybe using the 1girl and 1boy tags and their variants could provide a workaround,albeit a rather tedious one
Updated by jxh2154
With these assumptions:
Then, these would be the basic workarounds I know of:
Some examples of usage:
"No female" can be found under the male tag. (unless you want to find futanari).
I thought "no male" could be found with ~1girl ~multiple_girls but some taggers use the counting gender tag on mixed-gender images. ~1girl ~multiple_girls -1boy -multiple_boys works, but is over the normal member tag limit.
(On a related note, people seem to have been adding 1girl to various solo trap images, e.g. post #878424, post #851365, post #859215, post #785326, post #510710 so that they come up in a 1girl 1boy search. That seems wrong.)
Updated
The male tag doesn't actually mean "no female" it just means male predominate images.
As far as naming, if it is actually deemed necessary to make a tag for this, I think using tags like male_only and female_only would make more sense. Instead of tagging what isn't there, you'd tag what is there.
Using 0boy/girl sounds like a good alternative,plus it matches with the already established #boy/girl tags
I do agree that using the OR tags could work,but as you pointed out,they tend to exceed the normal user limit
female/male only also sounds more effective for tagging photos.
So searching for one gender,you'd exclude the other?
That sounds similar to searching for uncensored vs. -censored
Making a 0boy tag effective would require taging somewhere between a third and half the posts on Danbooru, assuming we tag all pictures of solo girls. Even otherwise there is a massive taging effort.
I feel like shooting my self in the foot as a regular member but we aren't supposed to make tags that discourages people from upgrading. Danbooru needs the money.
Well HM,what do you think about tags like these, that limit gender?
Possibly related is forum #68433
スラッシュ said
we don't currently have a good way of tagging an image with one guy and one girl in the image, unless they're a couple.
NWF_Renim said:
As far as naming, if it is actually deemed necessary to make a tag for this, I think using tags like male_only and female_only would make more sense. Instead of tagging what isn't there, you'd tag what is there.
After taking some time to think about your comment, I agree with you.
Of all the six proposed tags (0boy, 0girl, no_male, no_female, male_only, female_only) the ones with "only" in the title are more useful than the others; the tags with "0" or "no" in the title would be flooded with posts depicting no_humans or still_life.
Certainly, "seeing girls without boys" is a much more worthy goal than "seeing whatever random content we have except boys".
In short, these are the good ones:
EDIT: I changed some wording here before this message got any replies.
Updated
Shall we create and populate boys_only and girls_only, then?
Here are some notable examples of possible searches that I believe are impossible to replicate without these new tags, which nonetheless may be closely replaced by "-1boy + -multiple_boys".
(I think I don't need to explain them in detail, but I can do that if asked.)
Updated
Hillside_Moose said:
I still have yet to hear any arguments convincing me that female_only and male_only aren't just female (a tag that we repeatedly rejected) and male, respectively, with a new coat of paint.
Well, I've always used male as "male only", but now I'm not sure if that's correct, since NWF said "The male tag doesn't actually mean "no female" it just means male predominate images."
Hillside_Moose said:
I still have yet to hear any arguments convincing me that female_only and male_only aren't just female (a tag that we repeatedly rejected) and male, respectively, with a new coat of paint.
I don't think we need these new tags badly; they don't seem helpful enough to be worthy the effort of implementing them consistently.
Therefore, -1.
That said, I just see a few hypothetical good uses for them, nonetheless.
Danielx21 said:
- And girls_only+male would be for girls in masculine situations. For some reason apparently the only such image is post #1043415, and I'm not even sure it is really taggable male.
I can see no plausible reason why the male tag should ever be on a "girls only" post. Whether you use it to mean "only males are in this picture" or "this picture focuses on males, but has some females", it would never be on a picture of just girls. To my knowledge, male has never meant "masculine situations".
I'd guess that picture was tagged male on the basis of those characters being canonically male, but since they're genderswapped to females in this case, I removed it.
jjj14 said: Well, I've always used male as "male only", but now I'm not sure if that's correct, since NWF said "The male tag doesn't actually mean "no female" it just means male predominate images."
Well, the only gap there is a pretty small one. When it says male predominate it means really really really insignificant female presence. Like a random bystander on the street in the far background. Even if we did "[x] only" tags, I'd still probably say the same caveat should apply.
