biped is way too undertagged to be useful but I'm not sure what should be done about it.

Are there any counterexamples to an anthro -> biped implication?

Not from me, but not 100% certain either since anthro is so vague/broad

-
What about humanoid -> biped?

That's kinda related to something I've been wondering about recently:
humanoid_[body part]

etc.

If something like humanoid_legs happens, we could probably do
humanoid_legs -> biped and not worry too much about breaking something

Most naga are anthro. Human baby are quadruped.
I tend to not tag biped on anthro, because it seems pointless.

ZaSigma4 said:
I tend to not tag biped on anthro, because it seems pointless.

Agreed. Would an invalidation be appropriate here?

Maxpizzle said:
Agreed. Would an invalidation be appropriate here?

non-anthro may still need the tag.

Maxpizzle said:
Agreed. Would an invalidation be appropriate here?

not necessarily because it could still apply to ferals of species that are naturally biped, raptors and kangaroos for example.

R'D said:
not necessarily because it could still apply to ferals of species that are naturally biped, raptors and kangaroos for example.

Being able to search for that might even be useful. But not as long as humans, humanoids, and anthros are mixed in.

As it is now, if you search for bipedal ferals, for instance, you'll just get posts that have a human and a feral in it.

Maybe invalidate bipedal, but make a new tag for bipedal ferals?

What's the usage of biped as it stands currently? How are people searching/blacklisting with it?

@Genjar:
Sounds good.
But some non-anthro creatures are not feral, so maybe make bipedal_creature along with it.

@Maxpizzle:
I always tag it on bipedal ferals. I don't search it.

ZaSigma4 said:
@Genjar:
Sounds good.
But some non-anthro creatures are not feral, so maybe make bipedal_creature along with it.

@Maxpizzle:
I always tag it on bipedal ferals. I don't search it.

I think for simplicity sake we can just use bipedal_feral instead, even though yeah some non-anthros are not feral

If no one has any gripes, I'll probably be going that route then

ZaSigma4 said:
But some non-anthro creatures are not feral, so maybe make bipedal_creature along with it.

Maybe I'm overlooking something, but what else is there besides ferals?

Anthros, humans and humanoids are by default bipedal, so tagging them as bipeds would be redundant. That includes anything that's been anthrofied, humanoidized, or humanized.

Taurs have four legs or more, they can't be bipeds. And most bipedal monsters additionally fall under the humanoid or anthro categories, so again, no need to tag them as bipeds.

As far as I can see, all that's left is biped ferals.

Genjar said:
Maybe I'm overlooking something, but what else is there besides ferals?

What I have in mind are waddling head or some flora fauna like bellsprout. I see that they are not supposed to be tagged with those 5 main types. (Note that there are quadruped waddling head.)

I don't feel many of them really need the tag though... because they are obvious.

ZaSigma4 said:
What I have in mind are waddling head or some flora fauna like bellsprout. I see that they are not supposed to be tagged with those 5 main types. (Note that there are quadruped waddling head.)

Makes sense. I'd count waddling_head among the 'generally bipedal' species, but yes, I forgot about the plants.

Those might end up being a problem. Not common enough to warrant some kind of biped_plant tag, but if they're tagged as biped_feral, we can't implicate that to feral. Hm.

There is no need to worry about plant. Make biped_feral is definitely good, even if we don't invalidate biped and still make that new tag as a subtag under biped. That tag can be used to tell people which is anthro and which is biped feral. And it can be added to body types wiki.

I have a question. If plant become fauna, why don't count them as animal and tag them feral?
When they are anthrofied like average furry, I think they should belong to anthro, not humanoid. However, when human_on_feral appears then bestiality will be implied. I don't care about that tho, but others may think it's nonsense, or think plant are not furry therefore they shouldn't share the same tag with furry, so let you judge.
Well, this is not only limit to plant, living machine like motorcycle can be said too.

ZaSigma4 said:
or think plant are not furry therefore they shouldn't share the same tag with furry

Basically that. Anthro and feral are the core 'furry fandom' tags, and plants are usually considered not-furry. Therefore they're in their own separate category, except for plant feral such as ivysaur.

Not to mention that if they were tagged as ferals, it wouldn't be possible to separate plants that look like plants from plants that look like animals.

ok then, why there don't have alternative tag for those non-furry?
Like anthro_non-furry or original_form_non-furry, and then we can have biped_non-furry too. I think this could also be a solution to those non-furry being mistagged as anthro or something.

Genjar said:
Not to mention that if they were tagged as ferals, it wouldn't be possible to separate plants that look like plants from plants that look like animals.

I think there need to make 2 new tags to distinguish those 2 types already.

anthro_non-furry

One hell of a paradox,
sence the primary meaning of furry is basically the same as anthro in addition of also being a nickname for fans of anthropomorphic characters. Just saying.