Danbooru

Tag Alias: balls_touching -> testicles_touching

Posted under General

Hmmmm, I think we can skip the implication to testicles per the discussion at moose's link, probably. But I could go either way. I mean, penises are pretty ubiquitous on males too...

Done the ball_ -> testicle_ aliases.

T5J8F8 said:
testicular_futanari? futa_testicles? I'm get flashbacks to my care for a "exclusively-male pubic hair" distinction, but a decent name for "futanari with testicles" seems even more elusive and/or cumbersome.

The trouble is that there are a zillion different permutations of the "person with genitalia from the opposite gender present" formula. We'd have to have over a dozen separate tags under a futanari tag umbrella to cover the various points on the sliding scale between "all male" and "all female".

The thread Moose linked establishes a reasoned agreement between several users - myself included - that testicles on a male body is so ubiquitous as to need no tag. Thus, the testicles tag should only be applied to non-male characters, because only then is it actually useful to differentiate one body type from another.
In searchability terms, futanari -testicles should net you results where there are no futa with balls, but should not exclude futa on male images.

pool #1025 would thus be redundant, except it specifies a set of conditions that are hard to clarify via tagging alone.

So, back to the topic, implications to testicles gets a -1 from me.

sgcdonmai said:
The thread Moose linked establishes a reasoned agreement between several users - myself included - that testicles on a male body is so ubiquitous as to need no tag. Thus, the testicles tag should only be applied to non-male characters, because only then is it actually useful to differentiate one body type from another.

What about people looking for pictures of testicles, _male included_? This is the "nude posts shouldn't be tagged barefoot" thing again -- just because one tag is technically a superset of the other when looking at a specific pic doesn't mean it'll be in any way helpful for searches.

I'd strongly suggest adopting a general policy regarding this kind of body parts tags, one I've been following myself for face, hands, feet, etc.:

for any given body part X, tag it if it's clearly visible and not just marginal to the picture (which specifically includes, but is not limited to, X being the focal point). If in doubt, X being well-drawn counts as additional prominence, and being poorly-drawn counts negatively towards it.

Phrased differently, it's answering "if I were looking for x, would I want to see this image in the results?".

葉月 said: for any given body part X, tag it if it's clearly visible and not just marginal to the picture (which specifically includes, but is not limited to, X being the focal point). If in doubt, X being well-drawn counts as additional prominence, and being poorly-drawn counts negatively towards it.

Coming in late, but this is generally how I approach body parts (and many other tags) too.

It's subjective, but the only objective approaches would be "all" or "nothing" which are a bit crude.

But since it is subjective there wouldn't be implications of course.

1