titanmelon said:
Rather than nuking it though, I think the tag in somse form is worthwhile enough to keep for ambiguous cases
Truly ambiguous ones are rare, though. Almost everything that's currently tagged as semi-anthro can be fit into the main categories. The rest? Well, someone suggested an ambiguous_form tag, which seems like a good idea. 'course, that would be tagged for all characters that cannot be pigeonholed somewhere, not just borderline anthro/ferals.
1a. humanoid - humanoid shape, anatomy, proportions, - Little anthropomorphism
Anthropomorphism means giving non-humans human features. Most humanoids are not anthromorphic at all: there's no base creature that has been made more human-like. Except for some humanoidized characters (and things, such as planes).
Animal humanoids are usually considered to be the opposite: a form of zoomorphism, humans with animal features. But if they were to be considered anthropomorphic...
...the fox on the right side is not anthropomorphized at all, while the animal_humanoid on left is extremely anthropomorphic.
*- 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)
I honestly don't see much difference between those. Feral is feral, regardless of the art style.
post #241795 is tagged feral because of the hummingbird. The canines are clearly anthro (handlike paws, bipedal posture).
Updated by anonymous