Implicating humanized → alternate_species
Link to implication

Reason:

If something non-human has been drawn as a human, then it should always fall under alternate_species. ...or am I overlooking something?

And the same should apply to furrification, as far as I can see.

(+1)

Wow I was just going through these and they seem to be all over the place
-

Trying to make sense of the order here

At first I thought furrification was the umbrella tag, but it seems to only apply to 'furry' stuff - i.e. feralization is exempt

So we have:

• alternate_species

• [umbrella tag]
• feralized
• ponification (is this always in the feral, canon style?)
• furrification
• anthrofied
• humanized

?

-
Oh and there's humanoidized, which I keep forgetting about for some reason
-

Come to think of it, wouldn't furrification apply..only to anthrofied?

Unless we use the word in a similar context to 'furry' in not_furry,

which refers to...something
I honestly don't know what the criteria for not_furry is either

Apparently supernatural entities, constructs, aliens etc aren't considered furry

..Are insects and such considered 'furry'? They don't even have fur

-
That furry question's not really related to the implication thing..might put it somewhere else

titanmelon said:
(+1)

Wow I was just going through these and they seem to be all over the place
-

Trying to make sense of the order here

At first I thought furrification was the umbrella tag, but it seems to only apply to 'furry' stuff - i.e. feralization is exempt

So we have:

• alternate_species

• [umbrella tag]
• feralized
• ponification (is this always in the feral, canon style?)
• furrification
• anthrofied
• humanized

?

Not quite.
Furrification is only tagged if something that's originally non-furry has been drawn as a furry.

So, for instance, Barack Obama drawn as a feral fox would be both furrification and feralized. The reason why there's so few ferals under there is that there's simply not a lot of such posts, and they're undertagged.

It seems to have been mistagged recently, especially for FNAF characters.

Oh and there's humanoidized, which I keep forgetting about for some reason

It's relatively new.
There's still a lot of posts tagged as humanized which should be moved there, that's going to be one long project.

Apparently supernatural entities, constructs, aliens etc aren't considered furry

Only if they're drawn as furries.

..Are insects and such considered 'furry'? They don't even have fur

Yep. And also scalies, avians, fish, animal-like Pokemon and mythological creatures, etc.

'Furry' is used in the sense of 'furry fandom'.

Don't forget about dragonification. I've noticed that consistently with the MLP images.

GameManiac said:
Don't forget about dragonification. I've noticed that consistently with the MLP images.

Oh yeah, and ponification too. If that's tagged correctly, then it wasn't a pony to begin with. Therefore alternate_species is appropriate.

+1 for most of these -> alternate_species.

titanmelon said:
<snip>

• alternate_species - Good candidate for a near catchall tag: humanized, humanoidized, furrification, and possibly ponification (I've seen several pictures of Epona as a pony, so this might not exactly work)
• feralized/anthrofied/humanized/humanoidized - Canon-wise they aren't X, but they were drawn as X.
• humanoidized (which I keep forgetting about for some reason) - Our solution for tagging animal_humanoids (since they tend to get mistagged humanized)
• furrification - Used for non-furry to furry (Leonard Nimoy as an anthro fox)
• ponification - Non-MLP to MLP (Leonard Nimoy as a pony)
• (is this always in the feral, canon style?) - Nope, but it usually is.
• not_furry - Human-only, aliens, transformers, zero_pictured, pages of larger furry comics that happen to not have furry characters in it, and really old stuff that was approved for no reason in particular. It's basically a slightly more strict version of our "Irrelevant to site" rule, except that it doesn't influence deletions in any way.