I've seen some images out there that claim to be of a khajiit from the the elder scrolls series.

My problem was that I could not recognize it as such, even after playing over 2000h.

This feels like it is based on what the artist think it should be recognized as rather than what it actually looks like.

post #263092

post #252218

post #213440

post #280486

There are some others with more obvious hints to the game, but even then it seems like it's just an OC placed in the game rather than an actual player character.

Just checking in beforehand lest I should get bashed for unjustified tag slaughter.

Like hell those are Khajit. Eesh. They're just regular cat-people. Slightly puffy cheek-fur does not a specific game species make.

Foobaria said:
Like hell those are Khajit. Eesh. They're just regular cat-people. Slightly puffy cheek-fur does not a specific game species make.

Besides, it's Katia F. Managan!

Note that I haven't played the game, I just recognize the character n_n;

The problem is that you're linking images of Katia Managan, who is widely accepted as being a Khajit. With the exception of the last image however; there's nothing in that image that indicates without a doubt that it's Katia Managan, nor Khajiit. I've changed the tags to reflect this.

http://e621.net/post/index?tags=-katia_managan+khajiit

Unfortunately, I can't see as that there's really a whole lot that can be used to indicate that a character is a Khajiit, as opposed to a Lynx or Bobcat.

Digital_Kindness said:
The problem is that you're linking images of Katia Managan, who is widely accepted as being a Khajit. With the exception of the last image however; there's nothing in that image that indicates without a doubt that it's Katia Managan, nor Khajiit. I've changed the tags to reflect this.

http://e621.net/post/index?tags=-katia_managan+khajiit

Unfortunately, I can't see as that there's really a whole lot that can be used to indicate that a character is a Khajiit, as opposed to a Lynx or Bobcat.

There was nothing that indicated that to me, so if you would be so nice and point it out for me, I would appreciate it :3

Digital_Kindness said:
is widely accepted as being a Khajit

And this matters on this site how?

Kimpumomo said:
There was nothing that indicated that to me, so if you would be so nice and point it out for me, I would appreciate it :3

That's what I'm saying. Looking at the examples in the link I provided, they just look like a bunch of generic wild cats; lynx and bobcat would be the closest thing. Granted, I am not intimately educated on the lore of Khajiit, but unless someone can come up with some definite indication of a Khajiit, it's going to be hard to properly tag images containing them.

In regards to Katia, there's a history on E6 of using widely-known information when it comes to tagging. If it's a well-known character, and we know that it's a specific species, the practice is to tag that species. Katia Managan is known to be a Khajiit, so she typically gets that tag. It goes against the TWYS rule, but unfortunately that's how it goes with that particular character.

With characters who are not widely-known, it's difficult to definitively label them as Khajiit if we don't have a good way of defining what a Khajiit is.

Well~ for starters, it should look like a frickin' khajiit xD

Other than that, I'd say that something could be accepted as khajiit if it has some clear reference to TES E.G: fus ro dah, guards or recognizable armor.

If it doesn't look like what it's supposed to be, the artist has done a crappy job. That's why "tag what you see" works.

Foobaria said:
If it doesn't look like what it's supposed to be, the artist has done a crappy job. That's why "tag what you see" works.

Yes, but what defines a Khajiit other than puffy cheeks and little ear tufts? Because that easily applies to lynx and bobcats as well.

Digital_Kindness said:
Yes, but what defines a Khajiit other than puffy cheeks and little ear tufts? Because that easily applies to lynx and bobcats as well.

Clothing, setting, props, accent/mannerism, or identical gender/size/markings to a Khajiit already in the games, for the most part. Khajiit -are- lynx/bobcat-ish, which means nothing is a Khajiit without that additional nudge. They're not distinct as a species, otherwise.

Same for an Argonian: Their heads are distinctive enough, but most Argonians with bags over their heads become simple scalies without setting/props/etc.

Foobaria said:
And this matters on this site how?

I think this is one of the cases where TWYSNWYK needs a little latitude. A similar example would be separating Miqote from generic nekomimi/catgirls. Katia Managan is identifiable, so an Elder Scrolls species would be contextually correct. You could argue over whether that also implies lynx, lion, bobcat, housecat, or other real-world species based on the artist's apparent interpretation of a khajiit, but identifying the character establishes a context that should inform the character's species.

TL;DR: I see Katia Managan, she's an anthropomorphic feline from the Elder Scrolls universe, anthropomorphic felines from the Elder Scrolls universe are khajiit, ergo I see a khajiit, in addition to whatever other anthropomorphic species are suggested by the image.

Katia Managan clearly looks like a khajiit. Have none of you ever played any of the games previous to Skyrim or something?

720p said:
Katia Managan clearly looks like a khajiit. Have none of you ever played any of the games previous to Skyrim or something?

I just played morrowind for about two hours without encountering any khajiit that looks even remotely like that.

Tell me once again which one of these she looks like!

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121028214048/elderscrolls/images/6/67/Online-race-khajiit.png

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120612173402/elderscrolls/images/8/87/Khajiit_(Arena).png

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111231155153/elderscrolls/images/thumb/0/01/Khajiit2.jpg/1000px-Khajiit2.jpg

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120513143544/elderscrolls/images/0/0f/Zahrasha.png

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120124104241/elderscrolls/images/4/44/SepLnUp_Khajiit_a1%26c1.png

I helped you decide.

Which one is the one?

http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2013/019/6/e/oh__look__it__s_one_to_one__by_maturkus-d5rzq2j.jpg?1

I've played Morrowind, Oblivion, and Skyrim, and I've watched videos of Arena and Daggerfall. It doesn't look like a fuckin' Khajiit other than the little cheek tufts.

Kimpumomo said:

Foobaria said:

Well, I'm glad we've established that a character can't possibly be set in the Elder Scrolls universe or be a member of an Elder Scrolls race unless they come from a screencap or publicly-released concept art.

I mean, you guys realize that's the position you're defending, right? Kimpumomo couldn't have done a more thorough job of demonstrating how wildly different Khajiit have been represented within canonical art if he'd tried. Why can't we allow just a tiny bit of latitude for Prequel's artistic interpretation?

ikdind said:
Well, I'm glad we've established that a character can't possibly be set in the Elder Scrolls universe or be a member of an Elder Scrolls race unless they come from a screencap or publicly-released concept art.

Neither of us said that. If you actually read our comments, it's clear we described how someone is depicted, not the source or type of the image.

That thing looks more like something out of Ozzy & Millie than a Khajiit.

Digital_Kindness said:
The problem is that you're linking images of Katia Managan, who is widely accepted as being a Khajit. With the exception of the last image however; there's nothing in that image that indicates without a doubt that it's Katia Managan, nor Khajiit.

This.

I discuss this mostly for the sake of defining the rules.

Although, I do still believe that this character differs enough from how khajiit have been depicted to fairly say that it should not be tagged as such per definition.

Circumstances like props or situations indicating otherwise could change my view on the image, but in itself, it's just too generic.

I don't have much knowledge of furry-related artists and/or story lines, but I enjoy it. So when I search for stuff like khajiit (which is pretty darn specific) I want what I was looking for, not what some community thinks relates to that.

I'd stretch to keep the TES tag in some instances, since some situations this character is in do have to do with the games.

I'm laughing at how the front character in post #280486 is tagged as argonian simply because sometimes argonians are brown-and-green. Come on, now.

May as well put up an image that's just a white square and call it White Rabbit In Snowstorm because fuck, it could be.

Foobaria said:
I'm laughing at how the front character in post #280486 is tagged as argonian simply because sometimes argonians are brown-and-green. Come on, now.

May as well put up an image that's just a white square and call it White Rabbit In Snowstorm because fuck, it could be.

This is also one of the phenomena I'm considering bringing up.

Tag removal due to uncertainty vs. tagging despite uncertainty.

If the first should be the case, I would not call this khajiit.
If it is the other way around, I'm afraid tagging will be too ambiguous to narrow down searches enough.

bit of an exaggeration, but it makes for interesting discussion. :3

For someone who's never even heard of Argonian or Khajiit, post #280486 has a brown-and-green female assumed to be reptilian because of the tapered tailtip, and a yellow-and-tan female of no determinable species whatsoever other than she has a tail. You can't even see the tip of the tail, so for all anyone knows, she's a reptile too.

There is no way on this green earth anything in that image even slightly winks at TES on its way past while going down the freeway at 80 kph. You cannot argue that "someone searching for TES images would want to see that one because it has a green-and-brown reptile in it, so it should have the tag".

Foobaria said:
For someone who's never even heard of Argonian or Khajiit, post #280486 has a brown-and-green female assumed to be reptilian because of the tapered tailtip, and a yellow-and-tan female of no determinable species whatsoever other than she has a tail. You can't even see the tip of the tail, so for all anyone knows, she's a reptile too.

There is no way on this green earth anything in that image even slightly winks at TES on its way past while going down the freeway at 80 kph. You cannot argue that "someone searching for TES images would want to see that one because it has a green-and-brown reptile in it, so it should have the tag".

I left the Argonian tag on that image because it contains a character who is Argonian; the colors and pattern are clearly from that character. Just as Katia Managan is a Khajiit, so an image containing her also gets the Khajiit tag, so this image gets both the quill-weave and argonian tags. I debated removing them both earlier, but thought that there was enough clearly discernible information available in the picture to feel comfortable leaving the tags on. If you look at any other examples of quill-weave on E6, you'll see the exact same color/pattern combination. This is commonly done with other characters on this site, ie MLP:FiM characters, etc.

People searching for Prequel images will find those two tags very relevant, which is why they've been left on the image. However, there's not enough detail on the back character to definitively say it's Katia Managan, so those tags got taken off.

Foobaria said:
I'm laughing at how the front character in post #280486 is tagged as argonian simply because sometimes argonians are brown-and-green. Come on, now.

Well, clearly pingpong101 brought in a fair amount of external context. Where do you draw the line for that? I suppose you guys would reduce the tag set to "ambiguous_gender female fingering from_behind grope nude unknown_species uyoiou", and remove all reference to The Elder Scrolls and its implications. I don't know if that's wrong - on the one hand, the characters aren't trivially identifiable, but there's enough information that once you tag it with Prequel, it seems really obvious to be these two characters, even though I couldn't prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. There aren't that many significant characters from Prequel. But, sure, there's room for debate, so we should probably go with what the consensus feels is correct.

My point is simply that sometimes there has to be a middle ground for TWYSNWYK, otherwise the image search becomes less useful.

I got a chuckle out the whole "looks more like something out of Ozy & Millie than a Khajiit". Does that mean the artist of that comic cannot have a guest appearance by a khajiit *and* keep with the style of the comic? Must the artist break stylistic cohesion for a character in it to be "khajiit"? It demonstrates my point that you have to allow for artistic license.

I think that would be especially true with a fictional race that has varied as much as Khajiit have. I mean, seriously, Kimpumomo pulled out this ancient avatar image of a Khajiit. Canonical? Yes, but why do I suspect that if you came here and searched for "Khajiit" you wouldn't expect to find that? Maybe because it doesn't meet any of the requirements you listed? It's not wearing unique clothing, in a unique setting, contain any unique props, or display any unique accent/mannerisms, or any lynx/bobcat-ish features. Technically, yes, it does satisfy "identical gender/size/markings to a Khajiit already in the games". It is, after all, from a screencap. How is that so different from "identical gender/size/markings to a Khajiit already in a modestly popular webcomic"? Nothing about that image from Elder Scrolls: Arena reads as "Khajiit", except canon says so.

And then we get to "but I don't want it in my search results for Khajiit anyways". I have an answer: khajiit -prequel

(Now I suspect you're going to say that 182643, 160100, 157817, 150159, 149660, 149836, and 75851 don't rate the tag, among others.)

ikdind said:
182643
160100
157817
150159
149660
149836
75851

*) Clothes are good enough to say TES.
*) Maybe the clothes? Looks more like a member of the Romany.
*) Eh, the armor...maybe.
*) Not a chance.
*) Unless "A'kara" is a character from the game, no, that looks like something out of Twokinds.
*) No, not even with the "adventurer" in the drawing.
*) You must be joking.

I'm very tired but I'll try to make this understandable...

what bugs me is the reference to something more or less closed.

not exactly like, but kind of like making up a new character that interacts with the Lord of the rings universe, giving it a generic human appearance and tagging it lotr even when naked and solo before a plain background.

am I not making sense or is this just one of those pop-culture cases where we are to just know stuff because they are popular?

having a tag for TES does require knowledge of what that means, so should it not be implemented when someone with such knowledge can objectively say that what is in an image is connected to the games?

I was going to keep going, but I need sleep. brb :P

Sometimes that's done because of a theme or art style, For example, MLP/FIM tags are used for characters done in that visual style even if they're not actually from the show, because someone might want (actually, many do want) to block all art that even looks like the show.

TES doesn't really have any singular characteristic that would make it useful in the same way, being as most of its elements are generic fantasy (just put together in a unique way). If, say, every character in TES had three green dots on their forehead, then I'd say the tag would be useful even for not-from-game characters.

Yep. It was about time for another pointlessly anal-retentive and pedantic tag-what-you-see discussion.

null0010 said:
Yep. It was about time for another pointlessly anal-retentive and pedantic tag-what-you-see discussion.

I give up on those discussions, but I may just pop out of no where if there is a point is made wrong.

null0010 said:
Yep. It was about time for another pointlessly anal-retentive and pedantic tag-what-you-see discussion.

Anal-retentive *and* pedantic? Well...okay, that's a pretty good summation of my personality. Fiddlesticks.

Part i

ikdind said:
I think this is one of the cases where TWYSNWYK needs a little latitude. A similar example would be separating Miqote from generic nekomimi/catgirls. Katia Managan is identifiable, so an Elder Scrolls species would be contextually correct. You could argue over whether that also implies lynx, lion, bobcat, housecat, or other real-world species based on the artist's apparent interpretation of a khajiit, but identifying the character establishes a context that should inform the character's species.

TL;DR: I see Katia Managan, she's an anthropomorphic feline from the Elder Scrolls universe, anthropomorphic felines from the Elder Scrolls universe are khajiit, ergo I see a khajiit, in addition to whatever other anthropomorphic species are suggested by the image.

ikdind et al brings up a good point;

In cases like these, what about an exception to the rule:

Giving tagging preference to the more specific aspects of a post that require outside knowledge, but only if it doesn't conflict with general tagging/identification and alternate interpretations

A hierarchical representation of this idea (tags at the top get tagged first, then if the ones below them don't conflict with the ones above, the lower tag gets added):

1. Artist tags
2. General tags
3. Species tags
4. Copyright tags
5. Character tags
6. Other

-
The downside to using an augmented system like this though, is the assumption that every ambiguously presented character/object that can be identified is an established entity in itself that belongs to a certain series/franchise; i.e. not an original character/nameless character even if the artist is not aware of the other established characters' existence, which further limits artistic freedom with respect to the way their artwork is interpreted & tagged, and may lead to (more) accusations of character theft & plagiarism (unintentional or otherwise)

Part ii

Conclusion

In short, the current TWYS system provides a balance of the 2 extremes:

• + Being able to search for something and be 95%+ (assuming relevant tagging, such as felines being tagged with feline) guaranteed the images that show up are exactly, or extremely close to what you're looking for

• - But at the expense of artistic limitation in the form of limiting the tags to only what can be clearly observed from the image itself (with some exceptions like character names & species, provided that they're distinct enough from the standard)

With the above proposal, that becomes:

• + Being able to search for something and be 90-95% guaranteed (assuming relevant tagging) the images that show up are relevant, in addition to other possible posts (depending on how specific the tag combination is) showing up as well

• = Artists are more limited when it comes to original characters, if they coincide with established characters (e.g. If the character featured in post #280486 were original character, created/conceived without prior knowledge that the katia_managan and quill-weave characters exist

• - May be limited by implications, if they're not comprehensive (e.g. If katia managan implied khajiit, it would be impossible to include the katia_managan tag while excluding the khajiit tag, since the former automatically implies the latter

-
An ideal tagging protocol would of course allow everyone (namely the artist, tagger and searcher) to be satisfied with what they're stating, categorizing, or looking for, but at the moment, it seems like there'll have to be some kind of balance between the 3. So whichever system works best in allowing this balance, is the one that should probably be used in preference to one that gives less

My brain is full of fuck right now.
So TWYSNWYK is still a viable strategy, correct?
I'm pretty sure making exceptions will cripple the system as a whole.

(Jayfeather) said:
My brain is full of fuck right now.
So TWYSNWYK is still a viable strategy, correct?
I'm pretty sure making exceptions will cripple the system as a whole.

I think TWYSNWYK is a good rule.

It just seems to me incredibly strange to omit the khajiit tag from Katia Managan when the character is supposed to be khajiit (unless the artist has gone to lengths to identify the character as Katia transformed into another anthropomorphic animal). The more detailed pictures of her from official artwork may be more lioness than lynx, but to me that reads as artistic interpretation of a species that isn't consistently-portrayed in canonical artwork to begin with.

Or to look at it another way, would we really think it appropriate to segregate khajiit from khajiit_(prequel)? If so, maybe we should further split the hairs and define khajiit_(arena), khajiit_(morrowind), khajiit_(oblivion), khajiit_(skyrim), and khajiit_(online). I mean, these are all stylistically different takes on the race (hell, khajiit_(arena) is just "a human with face paint").

Honestly, I'm not even fully convinced that they're more lynx-like than lion-like, per the proposed description from Foobaria, in canonical artwork for Oblivion, Morrowind, or the upcoming Elder Scrolls Online. I just didn't want to argue the specifics of the description when I felt there were more fundamental problems with the argument.

I guess my position is, has been, continues to be: Katia is an acceptable interpretation of a khajiit, and if you can identify her character then her character provides enough context that you should probably be able to identify her as a khajiit. She may not be canonical to TES, but she is canonical to Prequel.

I agree that it's a case where there is probably no perfect solution. It's a fictional race that isn't even consistently defined as anthropomorphic felines. I'm struggling to think of a comparable example, but the best I can come up with right now are miqo'te, who are pretty much just catgirls/nekomimi, and the only way to identify a miqo'te from other catgirls is by clothing, hair style, setting, or the presence of more distinctive characters. I mean, at least the mithra had the nose thing going.

11

I... I just... I disagree...

I consider it worse to have to take that which you do not wish to see out of your search, compared to having to search for the name of the character you want to see.

Either way, the search has to be more specific, but to me it seems like the better solution.

oh yeah, 11. That is how many images that were not of this character that showed up on the first page. Dare I say this is becoming the MLP of the khajiit world?

(lol, yeah... the entirety of the vast khajiit community)

Edit: the second page had 4...

Kimpumomo said:
Dare I say this is becoming the MLP of the khajiit world?

lol. I think so, since Katia is the only representation of a khajiit (that I've seen), so a khajiit, in art, would be represented like Katia yay for an ambiguous response!

I just think we shouldn't give artists credit for something they don't deserve, i.e., tagging it X when it doesn't look like X. We do not owe artists the leeway of slapping paint haphazardly onto a canvas and calling it whatever they actually wanted it to be. (That's reserved for the New York "art" galleries.)

The images should be tagged with the character's name, because (except for that one absurd image) it is recognizeably that character, but they should not be tagged Khajiit. Someone who is actually searching for that character will already know it's "supposed" to be Khajiit, and somebody who doesn't know that character and searches for 'khajiit' will go "the fuck is this?" and not want it.

Searching is not diluted or diminished by TWYS.

Feels like we still haven't had any resolve in this question.

Kimpumomo said:
Feels like we still haven't had any resolve in this question.

No tag wars happening and only a couple people even talking about it, so it's probably not an issue worth dealing with right now.

I will throw in my two cents I guess, and then you can each grab an arm/leg and rip me apart.

I tagged this as being Katia and quill-weave considering their well known affiliation with each other, as well as their recognizable color patterns

I am willing to consider posts like these not being labeled as katia regardless of the artist's say so, but I think the above picture should be recognizable to anyone that searches for those tags. "Oh no I searched for Katia and Quill-weave and found a picture without their heads showing! WHO ARE THEY!?"

Katia is a character from an Elder Scrolls series webcomic, and I tag her as such as a result. Not having her under khajiit would be purposefully ignorant just because she does not have braids.

I don't feel like arguing over this however, so if you would like to go ahead and remove every single tag of "khajiit" from "katia_managan" then you go right ahead.

Kimpumomo said:
Dare I say this is becoming the MLP of the khajiit world?

Thank you, it was not easy finding some of those images.

pingpong101 said:

if you would like to go ahead and remove every single tag of "khajiit" from "katia_managan" then you go right ahead.

Not going to happen.

Kimpumomo said:
Feels like we still haven't had any resolve in this question.

ippiki_ookami said:
Not going to happen.

Well, there's your resolution: TWYS allows non-obvious species tagging when the character itself is identifiable. Odd, because the same does not hold true for genders, as I recall heated arguments about people wanting to tag Arctica as herm when her bits were obscured. Oh well.

Foobaria said:
Well, there's your resolution: TWYS allows non-obvious species tagging when the character itself is identifiable. Odd, because the same does not hold true for genders, as I recall heated arguments about people wanting to tag Arctica as herm when her bits were obscured. Oh well.

I've generally steered clear of the gender debates, but the difference is probably that gender has non-fictional, real-world, immutable standards. If someone is searching for dickgirl, they are probably expecting to see something recognizably dickgirl, not a character which might be a dickgirl in the unrevealed portions of their body.

Khajiit, on the other hand, are a fictional race, so their standards come from the artwork of identifiable characters, settings, or trappings. Prequel has written itself into that definition, using Katia Managan as exhibit #1. But again, if that's terribly offensive, the remedy is to search for khajiit -prequel, just as someone might search for elf -world_of_warcraft, orc -ragnarok_online, or goblin -final_fantasy.

ikdind said:
Khajiit, on the other hand, are a fictional race, so their standards come from the artwork of identifiable characters, settings, or trappings. Prequel has written itself into that definition, using Katia Managan as exhibit #1.

This. Adding to this is the fact that there is no definitive interpretation of what a khajiit actually looks like, not even from Bethesda. Khajiit have looked different in literally every single Elder Scrolls game.

Foobaria said:
Well, there's your resolution: TWYS allows non-obvious species tagging when the character itself is identifiable. Odd, because the same does not hold true for genders, as I recall heated arguments about people wanting to tag Arctica as herm when her bits were obscured. Oh well.

This cannot be conflated with gender tagging issues because it's not even remotely analogous. We all know what a penis and a vagina and other sexual characteristics look like, they are not fictional.

I feel like digging out that old book, but for now: Meh, I expected too much.

Can we have an admin final decision on the tags here?

http://e621.net/post/show/280486

null0010 said:

Digital_Kindness said:
... last image, however; there's nothing in that image that indicates without a doubt that it's Katia Managan, nor Khajiit.

This.

Don't know whether that was the part null wanted, but it is part of what was said, so it's something.