male and male_only

Let's settle on how to use male_only.
I was thinking we could use it for pictures with a group of all male characters like post #262721 or post #231220.
Otherwise just alias male_only to male.

I was under the impression that male_only was for pictures with only male characters, while male was for images that center on (a) male character(s) but don't necessarily have only male characters.

But yes, a concrete distinction would be good.

I use both tags the same way.

I use male_only, but I don't know if I've ever used male. It's exceptionally rare that I upload an image without females though.

Aside from noting that there's d00dz in teh pix, I'd think "male" could be coupled with "genderswap", though I'd imagine that anyone looking for genderswaps in particular would already be pairing it with a specific character of interest.

The entry originally said, "Images that are devoid of female characters."

I really can't remember if I originated the tag, but I always used "male" for images with just male characters that weren't explicit enought to tag yaoi so I could filter them out. The wiki definition of the tag was original more clear cut until it was edited, by memegui as it happens.

My reasoning for that was that according to the previous definition "an image devoid of female characters" a picture that would otherwise get tagged male wouldn't if there were 3 pixels depicting a girl somewhere on it.
Example:http://img440.imageshack.us/my.php?image=choyunoec2.jpg

True, I never actually came across that situation but I don't think the definition I made was that subjective... or maybe it was, who cares, let's decide now.

I use male whenever there's only men in the image. Female is the dominant gender in the images here, so one tag is enough when just searching for a picture with only men. Vote on aliasing, either way is fine.

As for that example: Just use common sense. Is the girl prominent enough to even warrant including her in the tags or is she just a vague indistinct spot in the background?

I'm rather implic-happy, but what about male_only implicating male, so that male-involvent images can be picked out, with non-female/futanari-involved images as a sebset?

Well, the basic question seems to be: do we need to differentiate between male-focused and male-only images?

If the answer is no, then the 'male' tag is sufficient and male_only can be aliased to it.

If the answer is yes, then we need to keep both tags and, in my opinion, use kayako's definition (which was largely my own). That is "male_only was for pictures with only male characters, while male was for images that center on (a) male character(s) but don't necessarily have only male characters."

Agree/disagree?

Ephyon said:
As for that example: Just use common sense. Is the girl prominent enough to even warrant including her in the tags or is she just a vague indistinct spot in the background?

That's just the thing, you can't rely on the common sense of people, mostly because there's no such thing as common sense. When in doubt, people will follow the wiki to the letter.

jxh2154 said:
If the answer is yes, then we need to keep both tags and, in my opinion, use kayako's definition (which was largely my own). That is "male_only was for pictures with only male characters, while male was for images that center on (a) male character(s) but don't necessarily have only male characters."

If we went by those definitions then 99% of male posts would also be male_only, so an alias to male would be preferable.

memegui said: If we went by those definitions then 99% of male posts would also be male_only, so an alias to male would be preferable.

That's sort of where I stand, though I need a little more convincing.

I can think of situations where one could theoretically indicate an image is male oriented but not male only, but I do have to strain to do it. For example, reverse harem shows like Ouran (post #234154) or Hana Yori Dango (post #53939 - the only one!) And how would you guys think of post #302054 where it's 5 males to 2 females, and one of those females is mostly hidden?

But the question is, as before, are those images worth distinguishing from say post #326007?

Generally I'd say no, and thus just male is fine. I find merit in simplifying tags as much as in making them more specific. If the simplification doesn't lose crucial data along the way, then the very act of simplifying can itself be a value-add. I'm well aware that there are some who fundamentally disagree with that though.

You know, I'm looking through the male tag and indeed, nearly every image is male only.

The extreme minority that are not are generally highly questionable applications of 'male'- like three random hetero hcgs which I removed 'male' from.

So by and large it looks like male already IS male_only and now I'm really inclined to go ahead and alias male_only to male.

AFAIK, male was meant as "male only" from the start.

LaC said: AFAIK, male was meant as "male only" from the start.

Definitely looks like it. As the need to distinguish between the two tags seems quite low and they're used for the same exact purpose 95+% of the time already, I'll alias them.

Now for the wiki entry. Should we change it to "Images featuring only male characters" or "Images featuring only male characters, or with an overwhelming emphasis on male characters"? Is the latter necessary to get people to understand that the presence of a female three miles off in the background doesn't mean they can't add male?

__________________________________

Added:
male_only -> male

jxh2154 said:
"Images featuring only male characters, or with an overwhelming emphasis on male characters"?

This. As it's been made clear, people usually follow the wiki to the letter when in doubt.

Makes sense. male wiki revised.

even when there were males with females in the image
i would tag them as Male.