DB WORKSHOP: Tag discussion

@TexasUberAlles  

@Napsack  
@Exhumed Legume  
Correct.

Fuzzy legs for nametag color.

@Solitude  
Gotcha~

Draggle, Reeka, Hydia and Scorpan for nametag coloring.

bitta luck for character name coloring.

Banana Fluff and Topaz Star need their colours.

Hello, I’ve got another tag question.
 
This image, >>1278800, has erect nipples visible under fur but no actual visible nipples. Someone’s currently tagged Nipples on the image. And I’m wondering if that’s the best tag since they’re not actually visible and that’s what that tag implies. She’s not wearing a shirt so Nipple Outline does not apply. Is there a better tag for this, and if not should we have one for it? I know there are plenty of images where there are erect or seemingly erect nipples but they’re hidden by fur or appear to be under the “surface” (there’s a bunch of Ember pics like this.)
 
Just want to clarify so I know what to tag.

@Vinyl Fluff  
I’d argue those nipples are visible. Then again I’d also argue that nipples painted over with body paint are visible.

@saby  

 
I’m kind of yes/no on it. Yes they are visible in a fashion, but not directly visible, as the tag implies. I’m in favor of a new tag like Obscured Nipples or something. I can think of a bunch of images I’d apply it to. Incidentally it would also apply to painted-over nipples.

@Vinyl Fluff  
Can’t nipple outline simply be repurposed for that?

@Solitude  

 
I considered it, but Nipple Outline has a very specific use. I was involving in the creation and discussion of it after seeing we had no “erect nipples visible under (non-transparent) clothing” tag. So it implies clothing. In this case there are none. Otherwise I’d totally just use it.
 
I’ve actually been wondering for awhile if we should have a tag for the nipples that seem to be under the “surface”, as is often the case with scaled characters. An obvious nipple anatomy but obscured and not directly visible.

@Vinyl Fluff  

 
Ergo, nipple outline. Wouldn’t it be simpler to remove the implication and use that as the description? If folks want a new tag, sure. But the name will have to be distinctive enough so it won’t be confused with NO.
 
Nipple bump(s)? For bare breasts with visible nipple anatomy but no detail? But that still would be confusing with nipple outline.

I agree they’d start to cross territory and get confused if that definition was used. I’d personally prefer to keep NO alone since it’s specifically for clothed use (and it’s very much a fetish for some people.)
 
 
“Non-Explicit Nipple” would in theory perfectly describe the situation, but honestly it sounds dumb and would likely lead to confusion.
 
The problem is finding a name that wouldn’t be close to and confused with NO. Nipple Bump or Bulge sounds OK to me, but you’re right, it would get confused.
 
The only thing I can think of right now otherwise is maybe “Hidden Nipple.” Some people would definitely confuse its use with NO, but I think it would be far, far less than anything else brought up so far. And a description can be added to the tag to help prevent confusion.

@Vinyl Fluff  
Nondescript nipples?

I like that. I like that a lot.
 
It takes “Non-Explicit Nipples” and makes it sound not stupid, and removes the chance of confusion.
 
If we can get an approval here from a staff member, I’ll go ahead and start tagging images with it. (I like to get an official nod before using new new tags to avoid having to potentially go and remove it in case there’s a disagreement with it.)

@Vinyl Fluff  
Yeah, that’d probably be a good idea.

Good news everyone!
 
We now have a forum dedicated to tags, and have opened an official tagging workshop. Head on over the the General Tag Discussion thread to continue all tag related discussions like the ones you enjoyed in this thread!
 
The tagging forum is the place you want to go for anything pertaining to aliasing, implications and other tag related subjects, take a look at the How To Guide to know how to use this new forum.