Posted under Tags
I had assumed not, but forty pages of results says otherwise.
But if they do, then wouldn't fake animal ears by itself, in a sense, imply extra ears?
In a brief comparison, other extra_* tags do not appear to be used when the extra feature is an article of clothing, accessory or decoration.
The wiki is up to interpretation I guess, but I don't think fake animal ears should count.
Tbh, at least to me, it feels like that the extra ears-tag should only be used when a character has more than two actual ears, rather than when they are wearing fake ones. Maybe the wiki article should be updated to make it clearer whether it should be used only with more than two biological ears or if various shades of fake ears should also be tagged with it.
Most posts which are or were tagged fake_animal_ears extra_ears were uploaded in the last year, and of those the great majority appear to be due to @0F5654E9AC9AB9AAD5B9. In the last year he has added extra_ears to 680 posts tagged animal_ears, regardless of whether they are fake or not.
Arcana55 said:
Most posts which are or were tagged fake_animal_ears extra_ears were uploaded in the last year, and of those the great majority appear to be due to @0F5654E9AC9AB9AAD5B9. In the last year he has added extra_ears to 680 posts tagged animal_ears, regardless of whether they are fake or not.
Looks like another case of a user that mass adds tags without actually looking at the images or reading the wikis. Checked their edits and immediately found several improper additions of censored/uncensored.
I've added the following line to the wiki for extra ears:
Fake animal ears by themselves do not count as extra ears. However, occasionally a character with extra ears may be wearing fake animal ears in addition (such as in post #6066475).
Since I was mentioned in here: The wiki didn't define the exact meaning of the tag and there was no reason to assume that fake ears don't count as ears. I understand that it might be more meaningful in the way it is defined now and I will tag according to the new definition.
blindVigil said:
Looks like another case of a user that mass adds tags without actually looking at the images or reading the wikis.
@blindVigil That is very rude of you. Adding tags makes this repository a better place, so why complain about it? I'm very well aware of the wiki definitions and aim to apply tags in a consistent way. If you want to discuss my mistakes send me a message instead of accusing me in public.
Adding tags is only helpful if they're right, everyone is subject to criticism if they're just making a mess someone else has to clean up. Your name was already brought up here, why then go out of my way to make the issue private? Tag edits are already a public affair to begin with. At any rate, you should read the uncensored wiki again, specifically this part:
It does not apply to nipples, or to body parts that aren't fully visible.
My name was brought up because of my interpretation of the previously vague definition of the tag discussed in this thread. I don't feel like this is a mistake on my part, because the tagging system is work in progress and people like @Arcana55 contribute a great deal by making it more consistent.
You just went through my edits to find something to badmouth me. I missed a 1 pixel wide white censor bar on light skin? Feel free to check my other 17k edits and clean up the mess I made!
With the new definition, I'm sometimes having a hard time deciding between fake_animal_ears and extra_ears. Take for example post #6108550, post #6108487 or post #6106048.
Should they be tagged fake_animal_ears because it looks like a costume or should they be extra_ears and kemonomimi_mode because there is no clear visual indication of a headband?
if they look fake i don't personnally see any issue in tagging them as fake animal ears despite no obvious headband attachment, especially when the character is already wearing an animal costume, giving context that points towards the ears being fake unless it is a kemono friends character
