Genjar said:
That doesn't seem relevant, so I'm just going to assume that you can't answer question. Since evidently you don't feel like explaining, and I'm not a mind reader.

I uhh..actually didn't notice your replies because of that forum highlight bug

The second post is related to the forum in general (but I suppose it's related to the feral body type thing too, see below)

Anyway,

Genjar said:
But again, what's inconsistent about those four?

Not so much the body types are inconsistent,
more about people who are under the impression that everything tagged with feral refers to the same thing, with little to no noticeable visible variation

Which has been pointed out multiple": times": in multiple": places": to be untrue

Art-style doesn't define the type. All four are feral, just drawn in different styles. And I doubt that anyone would tag those as anything else but feral, or at least I haven't seen that happen.

Some humans are drawn in a realistic style. Some are more cartoony. But they're all in the same type-category. Same goes for other categories, including feral.

Definitely agreed, body type and art style (degree of portrayed realism) should be treated as separate things for the purpose of tagging

That's why I made the suggestion": to do more things with the realistic and toony tags

But it was pointed out": (iirc) that those tags are also vague

-
links pending