How do I tag this?

90sAnimeFan said:

Is there a tag for when testicles are "peeking out" from under underwear? post #3727579

Testicle peek? Only 19 posts though.

post #3612085
the act of putting ring in someone's finger
I think a simple holding ring is too wide since it only describe post #3693291
EDIT

kittey said:

holding_ring + putting on jewelry + proposal?

I didn't know putting on jewelry before, thank you.

Hyoroemon said:

post #3612085
the act of putting ring in someone's finger
I think a simple holding ring is too wide since it only describe post #3693291

holding_ring + putting on jewelry + proposal?

post #3722505

Does this qualify has 1boy if its got the signature Fat Man belly and penis? What if they have abs instead of the belly? Or nothing at all? post #3721424

post #3719679
Should this be 1boy or leave untagged because technically it could be a really muscular newhalf

Can I use looking away with a character who has closed eyes? post #3731263

90sAnimeFan said:

Can I use looking away with a character who has closed eyes? post #3731263

It would be facing away.
EDIT: nvm, I just read the wiki. I was wrong.

Tapper said:

It would be facing away.

No, facing away is for when the eyes aren't seen at all.

BlubBlubBlubBlob said:

post #3722505

Does this qualify has 1boy if its got the signature Fat Man belly and penis? What if they have abs instead of the belly? Or nothing at all? post #3721424

BlubBlubBlubBlob said:

post #3719679
Should this be 1boy or leave untagged because technically it could be a really muscular newhalf

Until evidence proves the opposite, tag it as male in situations like this.

Tapper said:

It would be facing away.

That's what I thought as well, but the wiki reads like it should only be used when the characters face is competely out of the view.

@90sAnimeFan @Tapper That definition didn't exist when that tag was discussed a couple years ago in topic #14409. I daresay that the wiki is wrong in this case. Not only is it inconsistent with how looking_away is used (thus sowing confusion), it leaves us without a good way of tagging images like the one above.

Also, I just noticed that both post #2842645 and post #1483028 had facing_away removed despite being used as examples of the tag in that very thread. Fucking hell. Some people are way too eager to accept overly prescriptive wikis as gospel and start cleaning up posts that were tagged before those wikis were even written.

Huh, I didn't even know facing away was used differently before the wiki was made. It makes more sense though, as you say, to have it as a closed eyes version of looking away.

iridescent_slime said:

@90sAnimeFan @Tapper That definition didn't exist when that tag was discussed a couple years ago in topic #14409. I daresay that the wiki is wrong in this case. Not only is it inconsistent with how looking_away is used (thus sowing confusion), it leaves us without a good way of tagging images like the one above.

Alright, but just curious, what tag should then be used when the characters face really is completely facing away from the viewer?

post #3731856

Those machines that dispense toys, stickers, etc. in the plastic bubbles.

Tapper said:

post #3731856

Those machines that dispense toys, stickers, etc. in the plastic bubbles.

gashapon_machine

I'm having difficulty tagging post #3732856 for character. The tagging of gauna_491 and hoshijiro_shizuka is either wrong on some posts, or the separation is wrong under current variant tagging practice. I have no experience of the copyright to know how to resolve it best though.

90sAnimeFan said:

Alright, but just curious, what tag should then be used when the characters face really is completely facing away from the viewer?

TBH it never occurred to me that anyone would want a tag that specifically means facing the exact opposite direction as opposed to simply facing a different direction. Maybe facing_directly_away? It's kind of clunky but it's still better than this pointlessly narrow facing_away definition.

post #3739472

safe, explicit, questionable?

Effectively pornographic in my opinion, which would be explicit... but while there is nudity from the characters perspective, it is not visible from ours, which could be considered safe.

sodul said:

post #3739472

safe, explicit, questionable?

Effectively pornographic in my opinion, which would be explicit... but while there is nudity from the characters perspective, it is not visible from ours, which could be considered safe.

Would rate it as questionable

sodul said:

post #3739472

safe, explicit, questionable?

Effectively pornographic in my opinion, which would be explicit... but while there is nudity from the characters perspective, it is not visible from ours, which could be considered safe.

I would rate it as explicit since there is pussy juice visible/tagged, it would never ever be rated safe.

Also, we have a thread dedicated to rating checks.

post #3739842

What's the mallet-like toy below her tail? My first guess was some sort of kendama but it's fatter and more drum-shaped.

post #3471298

Is there a tag for clothing that is made of transparent plastic? See-through is of no use here because it's overwhelmingly dominated by textiles, and adding -sheer_clothes to a search doesn't help at all.