Posted under Tags
tamuraakemi said:
post #9082976 getting edit warred wrt this it seems...
i suppose the question is "do child posts count as enough context for tagging"
I would say the children should give context, but that would make this breast padding not male_with_breasts.
tamuraakemi said:
post #9082976 getting edit warred wrt this it seems...
i suppose the question is "do child posts count as enough context for tagging"
Iirc, NNT has said yes to this question in the past, though I would add "within reason". In this particular case, I'd give a pretty confident yes.
nonamethanks said:
If it's obvious that it's breasts and it's not just ambiguous clothing folds I'd say just move those posts to 1girl/futanari unless the face is actually masculine. It's ridiculous that something like post #7345723 or post #6708223 is currently under 1boy.
This is how it should be handled. No more cop-out excuses for tagging what looks like girls as boys. otoko_no_ko posts are getting way too much leeway with how they keep piling up feminine characteristics and enter girl/futanari territory but at the very least breasts should be the drawing line.
Updated by Ultexia
tamuraakemi said:
post #9082976 getting edit warred wrt this it seems...
i suppose the question is "do child posts count as enough context for tagging"
Tag what you see, not what you know.
If you happen to look at an image one day and decide to search for it on another, a tag like male_with_breasts for what looks like a girl with huge_breasts isn't on your radar because men lack this characteristic. It's not some ambiguous case where an otoko_no_ko looks like a flat-chested girl. Child posts shouldn't affect the tagging procedure for the same reason commentaries shouldn't: Images should stand on their own and not depend on information outside the image itself. You also can't exclude the possibility of deleted child posts. Moreover, even if that's not relevant here, sites like Gelbooru don't have child-parent relationships, so whatever is being conveyed in these gets lost one way or another.
The child post can maybe explain what's actually going on (therefore keep the April fools tag) but for pure tagging purposes having this under male is extremely unhelpful and sets a bad example.
Can we get a consensus on these posts? The tags keep getting changed.
post #6993898
post #8411611
post #6845637
post #8168046
Last one in particular looks very obviously like a girl. I don't get why it's tagged april fools, and the paid reward has her clearly drawn as a futanari and non-futanari variants.
HyphenSam said:
Can we get a consensus on these posts? The tags keep getting changed.
post #6993898
post #8411611
post #6845637
post #8168046Last one in particular looks very obviously like a girl. I don't get why it's tagged april fools, and the paid reward has her clearly drawn as a futanari and non-futanari variants.
Tagging the 2nd and 4th one as 1boy seems ridiculous. The other two are outside of my area of expertise, but these should very obviously be tagged 1girl based on the wiki.
HyphenSam said:
I don't get why it's tagged april fools.
It's tagged April Fools because the Pixiv source has エイプリルフール as a tag on it. That only answers your question in so far as to why it's tagged that here, but not why it is tagged that in general.
HyphenSam said:
Can we get a consensus on these posts? The tags keep getting changed.
post #6993898
post #8411611
post #6845637
post #8168046Last one in particular looks very obviously like a girl. I don't get why it's tagged april fools, and the paid reward has her clearly drawn as a futanari and non-futanari variants.
I would only tag the second one as 1boy, the breasts are small enough that it can still read as male. The rest should be tagged as female, though.
wispydreamer said:
I would only tag the second one as 1boy, the breasts are small enough that it can still read as male. The rest should be tagged as female, though.
I'm sorry but I really don't get this. There are unequivocally breasts, you even say as much, and no indication of anything else. Why would that not be 1girl then?
ANON_TOKYO said:
I'm sorry but I really don't get this. There are unequivocally breasts, you even say as much, and no indication of anything else. Why would that not be 1girl then?
My justification is simply just that it's something that I wouldn't be confused at seeing in a male focus search. Artists like Nagano Rira draw boys with small breasts often (post #8730220 and post #8739887 both NSFW for example) and typically these are tagged as otoko no ko and not futanari, though I will note that some posts from this artist should probably be retagged futanari. The reason why I think post #8411611 should be tagged as male and not post #6845637 even with the similar breast sizes is simply intuition. Which sounds ridiculous but it's exactly what it comes down to when tagging otoko no ko a lot of the times.
ANON_TOKYO said:
I'm sorry but I really don't get this. There are unequivocally breasts, you even say as much, and no indication of anything else. Why would that not be 1girl then?
I tagged it as such when I uploaded it, knew someone changed it but had no idea people were apparently warring on it, lol.
It would be easier to showcase the few posts where this tag is appropriately used. It's clearly meant to be a tag for otherwise masculine appearing characters, just like cuntboy and male_futanari.
This is generally how I understand it:
otoko_no_ko: flat chest, male genitalia, otherwise feminine appearance (due to ambiguity can appear like flat-chested girls/futanari which is why author's intent or knowledge of the character determines gender)
cuntboy: female genitalia, otherwise male body
male_futanari: male and female genitalia, otherwise male body
male_with_breasts: breasts, otherwise male body
breast_padding: the post itself makes it obvious that the breasts aren't real
But what's currently the case is that people repeatedly tag girls and futanari posts as otoko_no_ko + male_with_breasts using very flimsy excuses, and as such are blatantly violating various tagging policies.
Was pointed to here about these posts
I would argue that the child post does not do anything to show that the ones mentioned should be tagged as 1boy and in fact I would argue all three should be TWYS tagged as female since the joke of a small-chested/flat-chested girl wishing her boobs were bigger is very typical and it all reads as female at face value.
Updated by cranberrie
I have thought about this more with the posts I mentioned and the idea that Bridget's "default assumed gender" here is male and this is what I've arrived at personally on the subject.
From my understanding, tagging is supposed to be objective where possible and Tag What You See is supposed to be the primary approach. Therefore, when faced with a case where the gender of a character via TWYS is ambiguous and you want to use an assumed gender to tag, shouldn't the assumed gender be based on the up to date intended gender by the creators of the character and source material to be as accurate as possible? In this case, the creator and their current official content label this character as female whenever gendered.
Therefore I would argue that tagging the character as male in cases where TWYS fails goes against the up-to-date and factual descriptions of the character by the creator, and therefore doing so is subjective tagging. The only reasons to do so would be personal bias or personal disagreement with the creator on the character's current portrayal, neither of which are objective reasons to tag a character.
Ultexia said:
The child post is tagged as male because that's Bridget's default assumed gender and there is nothing to suggest otherwise in the image itself.
This just goes against tagging policy IMO. Danbooru works (in theory) on Tag What You See, seeing a feminine character with breasts (fake or otherwise) should be tagged as a girl unless there is evidence to prove otherwise. Adding Bridget's specific tag policy on top of that, I feel those pics should only be tagged as male if she's literally saying "I'm a guy BTW" in the image (IIRC, commentary doesn't count, not that it would apply to those posts anyways).
I understand Bridget and other otoko no ko characters have to go against TWYS on principle. But once breasts are added to the equation, it gets really hard to see them as male characters and not genderswapped, at the least.
Bridget in particular, shouldn't be tagged as male once breasts are in the equation. Breasts are the "physical evidence" her wiki entry is talking about (aside from the other obvious evidence).
as a side note, i still can't believe there are sugajyun bridget_(guilty_gear) 1boy swimsuit pics. i don't want to participate in a tag war
cranberrie said:
I have thought about this more with the posts I mentioned and the idea that Bridget's "default assumed gender" here is male and this is what I've arrived at personally on the subject.
From my understanding, tagging is supposed to be objective where possible and Tag What You See is supposed to be the primary approach. Therefore, when faced with a case where the gender of a character via TWYS is ambiguous and you want to use an assumed gender to tag, shouldn't the assumed gender be based on the up to date intended gender by the creators of the character and source material to be as accurate as possible? In this case, the creator and their current official content label this character as female whenever gendered.
Therefore I would argue that tagging the character as male in cases where TWYS fails goes against the up-to-date and factual descriptions of the character by the creator, and therefore doing so is subjective tagging. The only reasons to do so would be personal bias or personal disagreement with the creator on the character's current portrayal, neither of which are objective reasons to tag a character.
In an ideal world, Bridget (at least in Strive related posts) would be tagged as a girl, but a sizable amount of the user-base are very against the notion. (I find it endlessly stupid that official images have her tagged as a guy, but what can you do)
It also doesn't help that Bridget was the first big otoko no ko icon, so to speak. It's hard to shake that label off of her. Testament in comparison had a very easy time transitioning over to using 1other (also helps that they were basically non-binary/gender-neutral from the beginning in japan)
Wasn't it obvious that we were talking about this post #9084610 child post? It's the only one in this set that even warrants being tagged as male and even that's solely because of the current tagging policy, like I said. I agree with both of you and it's frustrating.
Hoshino_Yumemi said:
This just goes against tagging policy IMO. Danbooru works (in theory) on Tag What You See
From what I've witnessed "tag what you're told or else" seems more fitting. I got accused of vandalism in a negative feedback, and that was after I provided an explanation on how I tag and received no response whatsoever. Then I got banned for correcting blatant mistags as if tagging Bridget as female whenever the character is depicted as girl or futanari with very obvious breasts was a bannable offense.
Updated by Ultexia
