Hello everyone!

So i did some research and stuff to figure out how could be the anthro tag be divided into smaller and more excat parts. first i tought about levels but now i realised it's much more than levels, the anthro types are depend or other tags. Here are the most important ones:

1. The structure of the legs.

These would be the almost most important tags.
humanoid_leg_structure (or something like this):
post #898527

non_human_leg_structure (-||-):
post #897428 post #852740

2. Eye size and position

side_positioned_eyes (-||-):
post #834512

front_positioned_eyes (-||-):
post #897467
and
big_eyes wich tag is very underused: The name says it all.

3. Nose/face shape

flat_face (-||-):
post #898023

long_face (-||-):
post #894889

4. Hands and feets

humanoid_feet

animal_feet:
post #654374

humanoid_hand

animal_hand(-||-):

post #833307

If these tags would be implemented everywhere it would be possible to find specific types like:

post #853955 post #875990 post #876285
post #852751 post #798854 post #866471

Not like now, where every type is mixed.

Here is my excel workseet where i tried to create a anthroness level scoreing system, this forum thread is based on it. Here you can find it.

I think it's worth a look( you don't have to download it the google drive has a excel preview.)I hope i was understandable

I don't really agree with anything you posted except that big_eyes isn't tagged as much as it should be.

For the legs there are already tags: digitigrade (for creatures who walk on their digits, such as cats and dogs), and plantigrade (for those that walk on their soles, such as humans and bears--elephants are semi-plantigrade). Horses, deer, sheep, etc, that walk on the tips of their toes are unguligrade, but I don't know if there is a tag for that. I am fond of these tags because I love anatomy :3

For the faces I suppose we could use flat_face when it applies and leave the rest blank by default.

The eye position tags seem superfluous and obscure, though big_eyes is definitely underused. We already have hair for characters who have hair separate from their coat, and tags for toe and finger count.

Other than that, I agree with Peekaboo.

"taghing"...

I'm with Peekaboo in regards to big_eyes.

Long ago, someone tried to create a handpaw tag for non-human hands, but that never caught on.

Some of the weirder 'hand' types might be worth tagging, though. Such as the hoof-hands that anthro ponies sometimes have:
post #423716

Peekaboo said:
I don't really agree with anything you posted except that big_eyes isn't tagged as much as it should be.

Well if you don't agreed that's not a problem but then suggest a system that you do agree with. Give me suggestions because these anthro types needs to be destinguished, cause they are clearly different, we can't say that they look the same cause they aren't look the same.

So to all of you you can shrug it of with" i don't agree" but than suggest a better system if you can. Come on!

Let's make a tagging system that everyone agrees with!

Aeruginis said:
For the legs there are already tags: digitigrade (for creatures who walk on their digits, such as cats and dogs), and plantigrade (for those that walk on their soles, such as humans and bears--elephants are semi-plantigrade). Horses, deer, sheep, etc, that walk on the tips of their toes are unguligrade, but I don't know if there is a tag for that. I am fond of these tags because I love anatomy :3

Thank's those leg type tags looks useful.

*grade terms make sense (ie. describe a large distinct variation) but they are a bit technical, and IMO this is a major reason they are undertagged. Not sure how we can improve this.

I think big_eyes is probably a bad tag, in that most of the stuff it is applied to would be better described as cartoon_eyes (ie. exaggerated eyes). post #893585 is one of the few cases that actually has big eyes that are big in a literal sense, not just because they're exaggerated.

Eye position:
Those are monocular and binocular vision respectively. But these are possibly confusing terms (as monocular means using each eye separately, rather than having one eye)

I disagree with the examples of section 3; they don't appear to depict examples of the terms you specify.

I think there is some desire to make animal_feet searchable, and your example is good.

I consider your animal_hand example ambiguous, and also wonder how much it would overlap with claws (which admittedly is NOT restricted to hands). I can only see someone searching this in the case of realist art where the structure of the hand is quite clear.

savageorange said:
I think there is some desire to make animal_feet searchable, and your example is good.

Isn't that already searchable with hindpaw?

savageorange said:
ambiguous

THAT'S the word I was looking for!!

Genjar said:
Isn't that already searchable with hindpaw?

Nah, not really as those are purely for visible palms and soles/pawpads.

Jugofthat said:
Nah, not really as those are purely for visible palms and soles/pawpads.

Are you sure about that? It's tagged for a whole of posts where those aren't visible, and the wiki doesn't mention it.

Based on the forum, the feet tags were originally split to humanoid_feet for non-animals and hindpaw for animals. And the latter don't seem to have been discussed since then.

>humanoid_leg_structure
Plantigrade.

>non_human_leg_structure
Digitigrade or unguligrade depending on the foot.

>long_face
That's, uh, normal.

>animal_hand
Handpaws or hooves.

Ratte said:
>long_face
That's, uh, normal.

The distinction they are trying to draw can be seen between these two images.

post #839244 post #871613

Basically snout (which is ridiculously undertagged), compared to an otherwise much more flat and human-like face.

Clawdragons said:
Basically snout (which is ridiculously undertagged), compared to an otherwise much more flat and human-like face.

It would make more sense to tag the latter.

Ratte said:
It would make more sense to tag the latter.

Wouldn't hurt to tag snouts though.

Furrin_Gok said:
Wouldn't hurt to tag snouts though.

I don't think that would be too helpful if it's a normal trait for the species. It would be like tagging white scleras.

Ratte said:
I don't think that would be too helpful if it's a normal trait for the species. It would be like tagging white scleras.

Uuuuugh I forgot about that. Okay, only tag snouts when it's not normal for the species/character, got it.

Ratte said:
It would make more sense to tag the latter.

I agree. I wasn't saying snout was useful - if anything, how inconsistently it is tagged takes away from its already marginal usefulness.

Furrin_Gok said:
Uuuuugh I forgot about that. Okay, only tag snouts when it's not normal for the species/character, got it.

I did not mean to come across poorly. I apologize.

Clawdragons said:
I agree. I wasn't saying snout was useful - if anything, how inconsistently it is tagged takes away from its already marginal usefulness.

There will always be some limit to usefulness when tagging. Something like this seems kind of...too arbitrary to have much use. Maybe it's just me.

Ratte said:
There will always be some limit to usefulness when tagging. Something like this seems kind of...too arbitrary to have much use. Maybe it's just me.

I do think a "humanlike face" tag would be very handy though. I would, personally, at least strongly consider using it, if for no other reason than to assist my blacklist.

animal_hand -> paw_hands (although that seems to exclude featureless_arms)

Clawdragons said:
I do think a "humanlike face" tag would be very handy though. I would, personally, at least strongly consider using it, if for no other reason than to assist my blacklist.

tho it might be difficult to determinate what counts as human like face what doesnt. like here

post #899691

like it could be stylished cat face or human like face

Ratte said:
I did not mean to come across poorly. I apologize.

What? I just don't like seeing White_sclera renamon show false positives because people tag the perfectly normal white sclera of other characters. I actually love the idea of tagging it only where it's unusual.

Clawdragons said:
I do think a "humanlike face" tag would be very handy though. I would, personally, at least strongly consider using it, if for no other reason than to assist my blacklist.

Would humanoid_face work, or should it be something that's specifically only tagged for anthros?

Mutisija makes a good point, though: it'd be quite difficult to actually tag.

So let's try to get to a conclusion. So what should i tag then?

Mutisija said:
tho it might be difficult to determinate what counts as human like face what doesnt. like here

post #899691

like it could be stylished cat face or human like face

See now that one seems clearly humanlike, at not just a sylized cat face. Look at the chin, for one, which is clearly human in structure. Really the only thing that is catlike there is the nose, but even then there's no muzzle/snout that protrudes along with it.

I'm sure there are some grey areas, but even if there's some blurred lines for what counts when tagging it in some cases, I think it would still have value.

Genjar said:
Would humanoid_face work, or should it be something that's specifically only tagged for anthros?

I don't see why it wouldn't be fine to include it for both anthros and others.

Unrelated to that, I think Absol would get hit pretty hard with this one.

Hexdragon said:
So let's try to get to a conclusion. So what should i tag then?

Ratte said:
>humanoid_leg_structure
Plantigrade.

>non_human_leg_structure
Digitigrade or unguligrade depending on the foot.

>long_face
That's, uh, normal.

>animal_hand
Handpaws or hooves.

For the others, there has been some suggestions. Going through the Tags should give you a good idea for which tags fit the adjective you're trying to tag.