Hmm, yeah that would be a problem
Rather than nuking it though, I think the tag in somse form is worthwhile enough to keep for ambiguous cases
(unless we tag separate multiple body types per character (like anthro + feral),
But none of those results are guaranteed to have a 'semi-anthro' character in them, and to my knowledge, there's no way to narrow that down
-
(least -> most feral)
1. Human - 100% human, no anthropomorphism
1a. humanoid - humanoid shape, anatomy, proportions, - Little anthropomorphism
2. Anthro - fur, tail, less-human skull shape, - High anthropomorphism
2b. 'semi-anthro' - between anthro and feral (see wiki)
- (Includes taurs?)
3. Feral - no trace of anthropomorphic qualities - No anthropomorphism*
Other - ???
-----------
*- I've noticed that two main types of ferals get put into this category:
- i. Looks like a real animal, but with some 'humanised' qualities, especially facial expressions with the eyes and mouth. Closer to feral Disney animal characters
- ii. Looks like a real animal, with no 'humanised' qualities at all - literally like a real animal. Closer to Realism
- Borderline cases of both - post #324432, post #241795
(canines are physically capable of making those expressions, but they're unlikely to happen)
--
(Also agree with you about the subjectivity of lists like these as well, which is why there needs to be discrete, observable differences for each category on the whole, if we're aiming to avoid 'mislabelling')
Updated by anonymous