Vinyl Fluff 
"[@Velvet":](/tagging/general-tag-discussion/post/2641358#post_2641358
[bq="Velvet"]) "
> [@Vinyl Fluff":](/tagging/general-tag-discussion/post/2641218#post_2641218
)
> In that case, there would be no reason to tag it if every artist used that style for their reptiles. They would just search "reptile" or whatever we use for scalie stuff.
>
> inverted nipples aren't in a similar wavelength. inverted nipples are an actual thing that happens in real life and isn't just a nipple but simplified. Do you want various other tags like "Inverted Nondescript nipples?"
"
>
> [@LightningBolt":](/tagging/general-tag-discussion/post/2641225#post_2641225
)
> We're not going to start tagging eye colors and various other specifics.
>
>
> I'm strongly against this point because I don't want people to start thinking they can start tagging slight stylistic usages in various pictures like "simple wings, simple ears, simple eyes etc" We're going to get to a point where it becomes ridiculous[/bq]
Maybe I should give examples of what I'm tagging with this. I agree tag bloat is a bad thing, and we don't need one for every specific style, but here's the application here.
>>1170174
This isn't the best example, but it's one of the clearest ones I've tagged so far as I'm going through the Ember tag. There are defined nipples there. They're not meant to be abstract or overly-simplistic, they're just not done 100% like a mammal nipple.
>>1135738
This is another example, there's clearly a "bump" there meant to be a nipple structure, but it's deemphasized so it doesn't appear out of place on a reptile. If I were to tag this with@`Nipples@` it would be gone probably within hours. However, there is a form of nipple there, so it should have some sort of nipple tag on it.
It's not limited just to reptiles. That's just my main concern. It's also used quite often on griffon characters or others with thick fur.
Also, I think e621 goes overboard on tags as well, but we do have tags for@`Incorrect Eyecolor@`, and specific color underwear, socks and other garments. The latter of which I've always found odd.
What the Fluff?
[bq="Velvet"]
> [@Vinyl Fluff
> In that case, there would be no reason to tag it if every artist used that style for their reptiles. They would just search "reptile" or whatever we use for scalie stuff.
>
> inverted nipples aren't in a similar wavelength. inverted nipples are an actual thing that happens in real life and isn't just a nipple but simplified. Do you want various other tags like "Inverted Nondescript nipples?"
"
>
> [@LightningBolt
> We're not going to start tagging eye colors and various other specifics.
>
>
> I'm strongly against this point because I don't want people to start thinking they can start tagging slight stylistic usages in various pictures like "simple wings, simple ears, simple eyes etc" We're going to get to a point where it becomes ridiculous
Maybe I should give examples of what I'm tagging with this. I agree tag bloat is a bad thing, and we don't need one for every specific style, but here's the application here.
>>1170174
This isn't the best example, but it's one of the clearest ones I've tagged so far as I'm going through the Ember tag. There are defined nipples there. They're not meant to be abstract or overly-simplistic, they're just not done 100% like a mammal nipple.
>>1135738
This is another example, there's clearly a "bump" there meant to be a nipple structure, but it's deemphasized so it doesn't appear out of place on a reptile. If I were to tag this with
It's not limited just to reptiles. That's just my main concern. It's also used quite often on griffon characters or others with thick fur.
Also, I think e621 goes overboard on tags as well, but we do have tags for