So, I'm a fan of the living_aircraft tag. I've noticed that there tend to be two kinds of living_aircraft characters:

• Humanoid aircraft. Human-like in shape, but with a few aircraft features added (usually wings and metal skin).
• Non-humanoid living aircraft. Shaped like a real aircraft, but with a few animate features added (most often eyes and a mouth).

Should we have tags for these? If we do, "humanoid_aircraft" is the obvious choice for the one, but for the other one, "nonhumanoid_living_aircraft" is a bit of a mouthful. Maybe "animate_aircraft"?

(Mostly-joking suggestion: "aeromorph_with_torso" and "aeromorph_with_fuselage".)

The alternative would be to just use the tags humanoid and animate_inanimate in combination with living_aircraft. Of course, the downside there is that that doesn't distinguish between a humanoid aircraft, and an image containing a humanoid and a living aircraft.

I'm so curious about this thing. If it were just one or two people out there that had this fetish going on, it would just seem like a random personal one-off, but it's around a good bit. I'd love to have some insight into some fans' perspectives on what makes it interesting. Is it at all like the car sex thing? Is it something about the shapes? What makes it interesting?

So basically, anthro versions vs. "feral" versions.

post #1079845 vs. post #680836

BlueDingo said:
So basically, anthro versions vs. "feral" versions.

post #1079845 vs. post #680836

Except, not anthro unless they also happen to look like animals and not just planes.

Siral_Exan said:
Except, not anthro unless they also happen to look like animals and not just planes.

Anthro just means given some human-like proportions... So that fits.

Feral is not technically accurate, however, it does help with searchability and utility is more important than technicality.

Furrin_Gok said:
Anthro just means given some human-like proportions... So that fits.

Feral is not technically accurate, however, it does help with searchability and utility is more important than technicality.

Yet humanoid also fits, and should we be tagging things that're distinctively not animals, yet not human, as anthro? Or things that are animal humanoids as anthro?

I'd prefer we keep anthro for beings that also look like animals so we have some blacklistable tag to avoid such, or to specify which you'd like to see, lest we have absolutely no singular tag to do so.

And that's not getting into the dictionary/Wikipedia's split statements, mostly referring to sentience or etc. type of life.

Furrin_Gok said:
Anthro just means given some human-like proportions... So that fits.

Feral is not technically accurate, however, it does help with searchability and utility is more important than technicality.

Siral has advised me previously that I shouldn't use anthro on posts containing humanoid living_aircraft. After all, the anthro wiki states the "anthro tag is specifically used only for animal-like 'furry' characters".

Living aircrafts look like sharks a lot of the time.

BlueDingo said:
Living aircrafts look like sharks a lot of the time.

Yes, a beauty of modern design compared to evolution in biology, but they're not flesh and blood sharks now, are they?

If this is going to "looks", hyena looks like a canine yet doesn't have a set implication. It ain't accurate to tag them as one, so are you gonnna argue that planes are sharks?

Siral_Exan said:
Yes, a beauty of modern design compared to evolution in biology, but they're not flesh and blood sharks now, are they?

No, but they certainly resemble a shark more than they resemble a human. The humanoid tag is for things that look mostly human.

BlueDingo said:
No, but they certainly resemble a shark more than they resemble a human. The humanoid tag is for things that look mostly human.

Really? Did you read the wiki, then? 'Cause it includes aliens, robots (hint hint), monsters, fantasy races, and specific Pokemon. Not everything needs to look like a damn human to look like a humanoid, if the wiki is to be believed. It just needs to look... humanoid.

Siral_Exan said:
Yet humanoid also fits, and should we be tagging things that're distinctively not animals, yet not human, as anthro? Or things that are animal humanoids as anthro?

I'd prefer we keep anthro for beings that also look like animals so we have some blacklistable tag to avoid such, or to specify which you'd like to see, lest we have absolutely no singular tag to do so.

And that's not getting into the dictionary/Wikipedia's split statements, mostly referring to sentience or etc. type of life.

If it's got a cockpit-head, it's anthro, not humanoid. Humanoid suggests a human shaped face, too.

Siral_Exan said:
Really? Did you read the wiki, then? 'Cause it includes aliens, robots (hint hint), monsters, fantasy races, and specific Pokemon. Not everything needs to look like a damn human to look like a humanoid, if the wiki is to be believed. It just needs to look... humanoid.

Every single one of those only applies when the character looks fairly human. If their face looks nonhuman? They get the anthro tag.

I just thought of something semi-related. What is the living machine equivalent of animal_head?

Furrin_Gok said:
If it's got a cockpit-head, it's anthro, not humanoid. Humanoid suggests a human shaped face, too.
Every single one of those only applies when the character looks fairly human. If they look non-human? They get the anthro tag.

The wiki of the site says animal-like "furry" characters. Areomorphs do not fit under that. They are not sharks. The wiki for humanoid can be at least circumstantial, so they can fit more under humanoid than Anthro.

Read the wiki I provided. I am not suggesting an implication of any form, I'm saying let's stick to the wiki, as it is correct.

Siral_Exan said:
The wiki of the site says animal-like "furry" characters. Areomorphs do not fit under that. They are not sharks. The wiki for humanoid can be at least circumstantial, so they can fit more under humanoid than Anthro.

Read the wiki I provided. I am not suggesting an implication of any form, I'm saying let's stick to the wiki, as it is correct.

I suspect "Animal Like" is only stated because this is a furry-centric website. It is not an absolute requirement.

Furrin_Gok said:
I suspect "Animal Like" is only stated because this is a furry-centric website. It is not an absolute requirement.

I wouldn't take your suspicions, I trust the wiki over what you tried to say. It specified what you argued prior, so it's specific enough to cover what we're arguing now. Inaccuracies, after all, aren't acceptable when creating/editing a wiki.

Siral_Exan said:
The wiki of the site says animal-like "furry" characters. Areomorphs do not fit under that. They are not sharks. The wiki for humanoid can be at least circumstantial, so they can fit more under humanoid than Anthro.

Read the wiki I provided. I am not suggesting an implication of any form, I'm saying let's stick to the wiki, as it is correct.

Furrin_Gok said:
Animal Like is only stated because this is a furry-centric website. It is not an absolute requirement.

Ok, it seems pretty clear that this is an issue of 'the letter of the law' vs 'the spirit of the law', aka being literal vs being practical. I think this could be best resolved by the judgement of a mod or admin.

I'm gonna double comment because it's only semi-relevant, but this is begging to be a blame game: either the wiki is wrong, or the parties against it. Since I've encountered this (and nearly got a record because) before, let's get Genjar and/or staff consensus. One has the insight because they edited it, the other has the insight to change it.

*my inner grammar nazi is dying, I swear there is a better way to sound not-negative*

There's still the animal_head question from a bit earlier. If an otherwise human character has a cockpit-shaped head or a turret-shaped head or something, what would you tag that as (besides humanoid)?

BlueDingo said:
There's still the animal_head question from a bit earlier. If an otherwise human character has a cockpit-shaped head or a turret-shaped head or something, what would you tag that as (besides humanoid)?

Is that a legitimate concern? I can only think of NerfNow doing something like that, so if you can provide images I can think on that. Otherwise, I honestly can't take the mental image seriously. I'll shoot in the dark and say cyborg may work.

I have a larger argument that could solve that, but it's only tangentially related.

BlueDingo said:
I just thought of something semi-related. What is the living machine equivalent of animal_head?

I've seen characters with object heads referred to as, well, object_heads. It doesn't seem to be common around here though.

Furrin_Gok said:
It is not an absolute requirement.

It is an absolute requirement, and users have been slapped for ignoring it. Anthro is for anthro animals, nothing else.

regsmutt said:
I've seen characters with object heads referred to as, well, object_heads. It doesn't seem to be common around here though.

Yep, that works. And I think most are already tagged as such. 'Object heads' are pretty rare on this site.

As for living aircraft, searching for humanoidized living_aircraft works okay. Probably wouldn't hurt to have a single species tag for them, but I have no good ideas for the name.

Siral_Exan said:
Is that a legitimate concern? I can only think of NerfNow doing something like that, so if you can provide images I can think on that. Otherwise, I honestly can't take the mental image seriously. I'll shoot in the dark and say cyborg may work.

I have a larger argument that could solve that, but it's only tangentially related.

post #1202863 post #771759
You can throw a face onto an object and it's still that object in the sense of "anthro," but not in the sense of "object head."
post #1137142 post #821765
Human-like faces do occur. Especially so when Transformers are concerned, since they have a "Feral" and a "Humanoid" form for the most part (A few have an anthro form instead of one of the two others).

Of course, there are images depicting aeromorphs with actually animal-like heads:
post #1097968
But really, would a horse head on an anthro dog body really get its own tag beyond just "anthro" (and maybe hybrid)? No need to play favorites with Aeromorphs and drop them an extra thing.

Genjar said:
It is an absolute requirement, and users have been slapped for ignoring it. Anthro is for anthro animals, nothing else.

Then what do you propose? While that first image, you could claim that it looks like the face was "Drawn" onto the object, the second one has lips. No longer just an object.

Furrin_Gok said:
Then what do you propose? While that first image, you could claim that it looks like the face was "Drawn" onto the object, the second one has lips. No longer just an object.

I think that's what the humanoidized tag is for. It should be noted that that they don't just have faces 'drawn' on, they also have limbs and sexual characteristics.

JAKXXX3 said:
I think that's what the humanoidized tag is for. It should be noted that that they don't just have faces 'drawn' on, they also have limbs and sexual characteristics.

Humanoidized is for named characters with a known default form. Unless it's a humanoid version of Dusty Crophopper or something, humanoidized doesn't apply.

Furrin_Gok said:
post #1137142 post #821765
Human-like faces do occur. Especially so when Transformers are concerned, since they have a "Feral" and a "Humanoid" form for the most part (A few have an anthro form instead of one of the two others).

Something else just occurred to me. humanoid_face cannot be applied to humanoids according to the wiki. If living_aircraft are considered humanoids then the humanoid_face tag cannot be used on the ones with humanoid faces. So how would you differentiate between ones with humanoid faces and ones with cockpit faces?

BlueDingo said:
Humanoidized is for named characters with a known default form. Unless it's a humanoid version of Dusty Crophopper or something, humanoidized doesn't apply.

Oh, then why did Genjar suggest to use it?

BlueDingo said:
Humanoidized is for named characters with a known default form.

This hasn't been the case for at least three years.
See pokémorph, for instance. It used to be implicated to anthrofied (as is evident from pokemon anthrofied), and the only reason it was de-implicated is because it now covers both anthrofied and humanoidized pokemon.

The anthrofied wiki entry used to have some pokemon as example thumbnails, though someone seems to have removed them.

Note that this wiki bit...

Note that all of this only goes for actual copyrighted (franchise) characters, not your regular anthropomorphic furry. They should just be tagged anthro.

...applies specifically to anthrofied. Because it'd be redundant to tag generic anthro furries (all ~700000 of them) as anthrofied: that's already covered by the anthro tag itself.

Genjar said:
This hasn't been the case for at least three years.
See pokémorph, for instance. It used to be implicated to anthrofied (as is evident from pokemon anthrofied), and the only reason it was de-implicated is because it now covers both anthrofied and humanoidized pokemon.

Just to clarify things, could you please explain the difference between humanoid and humanoidized, and how they relate to living_aircraft? Are you suggesting that all humanoid living_aircraft should be tagged as humanoidized?

JAKXXX3 said:
Just to clarify things, could you please explain the difference between humanoid and humanoidized, and how they relate to living_aircraft?

Humanoid is any humanoid creature.
Humanoidized is any humanoid who's standard form is discernible as something else than humanoid.

Are you suggesting that all humanoid living_aircraft should be tagged as humanoidized?

Yep, and most of them already are tagged as such.
[/quote]

Genjar said:
This hasn't been the case for at least three years.
See pokémorph, for instance. It used to be implicated to anthrofied (as is evident from pokemon anthrofied), and the only reason it was de-implicated is because it now covers both anthrofied and humanoidized pokemon.

The anthrofied wiki entry used to have some pokemon as example thumbnails, though someone seems to have removed them.

Note that this wiki bit...
...applies specifically to anthrofied. Because it'd be redundant to tag generic anthro furries (all ~700000 of them) as anthrofied: that's already covered by the anthro tag itself.

To memory, Pokemon are character-species hybrids, as ruled by multiple staff members. We keep the tags as species, but they get the subtags that otherwise only go to characters.

Furrin_Gok said:
To memory, Pokemon are character-species hybrids, as ruled by multiple staff members. We keep the tags as species, but they get the subtags that otherwise only go to characters.

A practice I'm completely against because it creates a double-standard where some species get character-specific tags and other species don't, and the deciding factor between what does and what doesn't get the tags is unclear.

BlueDingo said:
A practice I'm completely against because it creates a double-standard where some species get character-specific tags and other species don't, and the deciding factor between what does and what doesn't get the tags is unclear.

I don't see where the confusion is. If it's a Pokemon, it gets the Pokemon exemption. If it isn't, it doesn't.

Furrin_Gok said:
I don't see where the confusion is. If it's a Pokemon, it gets the Pokemon exemption. If it isn't, it doesn't.

What about Digimon, Neopets or other similar franchises? Why pokémon specifically?

BlueDingo said:
What about Digimon, Neopets or other similar franchises? Why pokémon specifically?

If you're going to keep on the subject, it may be better to make its own thread. If you're going to try and start up a tagging trend, it's best to get some feedback before you start.

BlueDingo said:
What about Digimon, Neopets or other similar franchises?

All of them are tagged as humanoidized/anthrofied/etc if they're depicted in a non-standard form. Same goes for species such as koopas, shyguys, etc.

Well, I didn't see anyone arguing that we shouldn't have these separate tags, so I went ahead and created them: humanoid_aircraft and feral_aircraft. I've added a few posts to each tag.

Does anyone think I should finish the job, and tag all the rest of the living_aircraft? Does anyone think that I shouldn't finish the job?

secondCountable said:
Well, I didn't see anyone arguing that we shouldn't have these separate tags, so I went ahead and created them: humanoid_aircraft and feral_aircraft. I've added a few posts to each tag.

Humanoid_aircraft works, though aircraft_humanoid would've been closer to the naming standard (animal_humanoid, monstrous_humanoid, etc).

But feral_aircraft seems like a bad idea that will cause confusion. Feral is for feral animals, and aircraft should never have the tag (unless it's a hybrid of some kind, such as in post #878876 and post #289310).

Sure. I'll change humanoid_aircraft to aircraft_humanoid and put it on some more posts. I'm going to totally leave feral_aircraft alone until I think of something better.

The best I've been able to come up with for the non-humanoid tag is "nonhumanoid_aeromorph", but that still feels too verbose. "Animate_aircraft" is... not the worst, but it's definitely not obvious why "living" would include humanoids while "animate" would exclude them.

There's also "nonhumanoid_aircraft", but I wonder if people would think that that would include non-living aircraft as well (which it shouldn't).

Aircraft_humanoid used for characters that don't have human faces and in some cases even have digitigrade legs and paws seems very inconsistent with the use of humanoid tags on this site. Humanoids here are described as having a humanoid_face by default which these characters lack.

The anthro thing applying only to animals seems needlessly arbitrary and if it's only going to apply to animals, an alternative tag for non-animal anthros needs to be made. The definition to me reads more like poor wording to clarify that the tag doesn't apply to humanoids or ferals than intent to bar non-animal anthros. Personally I think it'd be better to clarify the definition of anthro than to make a new tag since anthro not applying to non-animals doesn't seem to have a purpose that can't be solved by blocking.

regsmutt said:
The anthro thing applying only to animals seems needlessly arbitrary and if it's only going to apply to animals--

The main difference between anthro and humanoid is that anthro is for site-relevant species, and humanoid is for ones that are either not_furry (such as anthropomorphic airplanes) or borderline (such as humans with animal ears). That's hardly arbitrary.

It's literally why the humanoid tag was created in the first place: to get non-furries out of anthro.

Genjar said:
The main difference between anthro and humanoid is that anthro is for site-relevant species, and humanoid is for ones that are either not_furry (such as anthropomorphic airplanes) or borderline (such as humans with animal ears). That's hardly arbitrary.

Then the wiki needs to be changed on humanoid. As is it mentions things like humanoid faces and bodies as features and the examples given all give strength to this interpretation. There's no mention of what would otherwise be considered anthro non-furry characters. As both pages are currently written non-furry anthros shouldn't be tagged as either.

regsmutt said:
Then the wiki needs to be changed on humanoid. As is it mentions things like humanoid faces and bodies as features and the examples given all give strength to this interpretation. There's no mention of what would otherwise be considered anthro non-furry characters. As both pages are currently written non-furry anthros shouldn't be tagged as either.

Yeah, there might be too much focus on human faces, especially in the thumbnails. I'll switch them around a bit, let's just hope that it won't result in anthros being tagged as humanoid..

Note that the wiki only lists humanoid face as a common feature, though. Not as requirements.

+1 because I don't think Bullet Bills from Mario or things like my avatar need the same blacklist treatment as weird fetish boobplanes

Genjar said:
But feral_aircraft seems like a bad idea that will cause confusion. Feral is for feral animals, and aircraft should never have the tag (unless it's a hybrid of some kind, such as in post #878876 and post #289310).

regsmutt said:
Aircraft_humanoid used for characters that don't have human faces and in some cases even have digitigrade legs and paws seems very inconsistent with the use of humanoid tags on this site. Humanoids here are described as having a humanoid_face by default which these characters lack.

Well, both of you may be right, but I haven't thought of a good alternative to either one, so I'm sticking with both of these tags for the time being.

If anyone can suggest any alternatives to either one, that would be really great.

vehicular_aircraft?

What do you think of nonhumanoid_aircraft? Technically non-living aircraft are also non-humanoid, but the "living" part can just be implied.

I've also thought about just inventing a word, like "aviomorph", but I doubt that would really go over well.

secondCountable said:
I've also thought about just inventing a word, like "aviomorph", but I doubt that would really go over well.

We already tried aeromorph, which would've solved this problem if it had been tagged consistently. It wasn't.

I don't think we actually need two tags. living_aircraft -aircraft_humanoid should work well enough, as long as those are tagged. Since even living_aircraft -humanoid works decently, except for the hybrids. ^{_{Why are there so many pony/airplane hybrids...}}

Genjar said:
We already tried aeromorph, which would've solved this problem if it had been tagged consistently. It wasn't.

What do you mean? Aeromorph is aliased to living_aircraft, so it's impossible to tag a post with aeromorph. Unless you're talking about the time before aeromorph was aliased, which I know nothing about.

Genjar said:
We already tried aeromorph, which would've solved this problem if it had been tagged consistently. It wasn't.

I don't think we actually need two tags. living_aircraft -aircraft_humanoid should work well enough, as long as those are tagged. Since even living_aircraft -humanoid works decently, except for the hybrids. ^{_{Why are there so many pony/airplane hybrids...}}

Except for the "Anthro" ones. From our very own utility viewpoint on humanoid, it needs to actually have a human look to the face as well, which it lacks. And for the utility viewpoint on Anthro, well, it's necessary to have it be tagged something other than humanoid, because people do want to find it separately from the ones with actual human like faces.

post #1206254
And especially in the case of the well defined character, kemo-chan_(8chan), she's even got a different body structure. That's a different phenotype than the humanoid structure, meaning humanoid no longer fits even in technicality.

Bumping this to say that feral aircraft is a poor choice of a tag name, yet is kept tagged. Anyone got better? JakXXX3 suggested, in chat, that just living aircraft would suffice for natural forms.

Siral_Exan said:
Bumping this to say that feral aircraft is a poor choice of a tag name, yet is kept tagged. Anyone got better? JakXXX3 suggested, in chat, that just living aircraft would suffice for natural forms.

I really don't think it would. That name would apply to the anthro and humanoid ones too. Technical inaccuracy or not, Feral is making the most sense.

Edit: Actually, it looks like some folk have taken to using "dire" for it. Another technical inaccuracy, as dire defines something as being terrifying, not living, but that just means there shouldn't be mistags since it's so out of the way.

It's technically inaccurate but intuitive. Unless you have a better idea for a replacement (and I disagree that just living_aircraft would suffice), I say keep it.

Furrin_Gok said:
I really don't think it would. That name would apply to the anthro and humanoid ones too. Technical inaccuracy or not, Feral is making the most sense.

Well, I'm willing to say that the inaccuracies will hamper the intention. After all, how many more aircraft can be called feral in comparison to the humanoid ones, including living aircraft (hint hint).

We need a tag named for aircraft that displays life in its natural state, and doesn't clash with our existing tags. This isn't my cup of tea, so don't expect suggestions out of me yet.

Furrin_Gok said:
I really don't think it would. That name would apply to the anthro and humanoid ones too. Technical inaccuracy or not, Feral is making the most sense.

Edit: Actually, it looks like some folk have taken to using "dire" for it. Another technical inaccuracy, as dire defines something as being terrifying, not living, but that just means there shouldn't be mistags since it's so out of the way.

Since we have aircraft_humanoid wouldn't feral_aircraft imply an aircraft with the physical form of a feral animal?

If the character is merely an aircraft without a defined anthro/humanoid/feral body structure, and simply has a face, wouldn't animate_inanimate be more appropriate? If you want to be more specific, you could use animate_aircraft or animate_vehicle as well.

Not to mention that it's already tagged for hybrid feral living_aircraft, such as this pony:

post #1020080

Like I said, bad choice for the tag name if it's meant for living aircraft in their normal aircraft form.

By the way, we don't have separate tag for other groups such as flora_fauna or mineral_fauna either. Currently you have to search for flora_fauna -feral -anthro -humanoid to find animated plants in their 'natural' form. And that excludes most posts that feature other characters.

So if we add such tag for aircraft, we should probably add one for the other groups too. And make the name uniform in some way.