mob x character

So what happens if the mob person is a fat man, dark-skinned male or a gyaruo? Would they count against the tag?

why wouldn't they count?

I'm just asking if the tag would only apply to typical pov sex posts.

something like post #8736684 or post #8718931 should definitely still count

post #7727096 is just missing eyes, but i think it's still within the "mob" spirit

to whoever made the BUR, can you add favgroup #39855? it's my attempt at populating it, mainly with posts from pool:Almost_Yuri -otoko_no_ko -futanari -androgynous -other_with_female (~1boy ~multiple_boys) status:all limit:200 -favgroup:39855

i'm all for helping out with populating this tag so long as there's an agreed upon definition. i'm in favor of something like "cannot be tagged as any existing character and has no outstanding character design (i.e. original)" as others have said.

sinning said:

something like post #8736684 or post #8718931 should definitely still count

post #7727096 is just missing eyes, but i think it's still within the "mob" spirit

to whoever made the BUR, can you add favgroup #39855? it's my attempt at populating it, mainly with posts from pool:Almost_Yuri -otoko_no_ko -futanari -androgynous -other_with_female (~1boy ~multiple_boys) status:all limit:200 -favgroup:39855

Sure can. Added it. My own favgroup more served as a starter group, which if a tag were to be made, could be populated overtime. The more caught on the initial update, the less work moving forward (as well as providing a stronger argument.

sacchariine said:

i'm all for helping out with populating this tag so long as there's an agreed upon definition. i'm in favor of something like "cannot be tagged as any existing character and has no outstanding character design (i.e. original)" as others have said.

Wonderful. I believe we are covering vaguely defined men who are only drawn to be fucking cute anime girls, whether it be as a pov shot or as like...A vague character such as with post #8718931. Is that a strong enough definition for what we got?

Knowledge_Seeker said:
[...]

Wonderful. I believe we are covering vaguely defined men who are only drawn to be fucking cute anime girls, whether it be as a pov shot or as like...A vague character such as with post #8718931. Is that a strong enough definition for what we got?

yeah, i think so. a clear wiki would also be nice, i'll consider drafting one if the bur passes.

sacchariine said:

yeah, i think so. a clear wiki would also be nice, i'll consider drafting one if the bur passes.

This tag definitely needs a clear, strong wiki. Otherwise, this tag could end up polluted, and that'd defeat the whole point. Example posts probably wouldn't hurt either, but I don't really know how to go about those, due to mob characters inherently being an NSFW tag for the most part.

Don't hesitate to leave a wiki draft here for others to check over, either. Helps iron out possible kinks or confusing wording.

alright, well here's my quick shot at trying to define non-descript male based off my own understanding and the works listed in the two favgroups:

A non-background character that is not taggable as any existing character and has no unique design traits that would make it taggable as an original character. Essentially, a character that would usually be an extra who takes an active role in the image.

Non-descript characters usually have one or more of the following traits:

• Are partially or fully faceless assuming the head is visible in the shot.
• Are given less attention to detail than the main subject(s) of the image; at times almost completely featureless.
• Take up little space in the shot relative to the main subject(s).

The following may also apply for NSFW posts:

• Little more than the non-descript character's genitals and the surrounding area are visible.
• The character is meant to be treated as a self-insert for the viewer (common in pov works) above all else.

i've opted to describe a list of common traits as opposed to image examples since the wiki guidelines say to avoid nsfw images (and i'm not sure how much searching it would have taken to find a sfw non-descript male post...). i'm open to criticism on this draft, particularly around how wide or narrow the tag's scope should ultimately be.

this wiki draft is looking good, though i'm not sure about its implication that there could be SFW mob x character works... i suppose something like post #5874055 could count...? i'm not really sure. it's a tag that'd be at least 99% NSFW anyway, so i don't think separating the NSFW part out is necessary, if anything something separated for SFW non-descript characters would be more in place

also since the name we're working with so far, as suboptimal as it is, is non-descript male, i don't think going for the gender-neutral term "genitals" is necessary... then again, "penis and/or testicles" would sound awkward here. nevermind

sinning said:

[...]

did it to be on the safe side, though on second thought it's probably going to end up being a 99% nsfw tag anyway, so the lists can indeed be safely merged.

Other than what sinning has pointed out, this draft looks great. Describes a mob character pretty well in my opinion.

Knowledge_Seeker said:

Ah. I somehow got it in my head that we wanted the tags to be generally exclusive (and to differentiate the tag). If we don't them exclusive...Then would it ought be best to remove the "-faceless_male" part of this BUR?

All non-descript_male is faceless but not all faceless male is non-descript.

all non-descript male is "faceless", but not by our wiki definition:

When a male's facial features (mainly the eyes) don't appear, either because they're hidden, covered by hair, in shadow, or not drawn at all.

this implies that, for a post to be tagged faceless male, the head has to be within the frame, just lacking in features. on contrary, "non-descript male" would also encompass a subset of POV, head out of frame, disembodied penis, disembodied hand, and so on, posts, that is posts that would not display the head in any capacity in the first place

sinfulporcupine said:

all non-descript male is "faceless", but not by our wiki definition:

this implies that, for a post to be tagged faceless male, the head has to be within the frame, just lacking in features. on contrary, "non-descript male" would also encompass a subset of POV, head out of frame, disembodied penis, disembodied hand, and so on, posts, that is posts that would not display the head in any capacity in the first place

That's true. I missed that part.

This bulk update request is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

now that i think of it, i am no longer supportive of the proposed name "nondescript male". post #8877898 is definitely a "mob x character" illustration, with that disembodied hand pulling the canon character's shirt up, but it's just a hand. moreover, that name could be easily misconstrued to be used on non-romantic/sexual pictures like post #8745669. i really want to avoid having it watered down and used in irrelevant situations

i changed my vote on BUR #35769 from an upvote to a meh

Disclaimer: I personally don't like the name "nondescript male" either. It was just the best I could come up with in the short term. Suggestions for better name are still accepted and highly encouraged.

What about something like strangers? The tag is currently unused and the "nondescript males" are usually strangers to the character in those types of images.

Hm...It's an improvement and significantly less awkward sounding than nondescript male (and more gender neutral, which helps in the stray case of a female mob character). However, considering we got tags like friends out there (a tag that got attempted to be deprecated in topic #28359), I worry about the tag ending up getting misused on characters who canonically are strangers relationship wise. I'm not sure.