I have come to a situation where I would think the feral tag isn't used properly in some cases. To my understanding, the feral tag is used for animals in their normal form, the one we can actually see if we go outside once in a while. However, feral has also been used very often for video game characters as Pokémon. Most of them make sense like Arcanine and other animal-based characters, but a lot of them are not based on animals whatsoever like Mew, example on this one scenario here post #904575

I agree that in a way, Mew is feral, in the sense that it's the normal/natural form in the serie and very often you can find anthrofied Mew or any other Pokémon, but here, since it's doing lots of stuff with a human dick, it gets tagged as feral, then human_on_feral, then finally bestiality, which doesn't make any sense because Mew isn't animal-related at all. The bestiality tag is my main issue here, but I can't remove it because it is aliased with human_on_feral, but I don't want to delete those tags because in a way, those are right, just not in an animal-related manner

Neitsuke said:
I agree that in a way, Mew is feral, in the sense that it's the normal/natural form in the serie and very often you can find anthrofied Mew or any other Pokémon, but here, since it's doing lots of stuff with a human dick, it gets tagged as feral, then human_on_feral, then finally bestiality, which doesn't make any sense at all because Mew isn't animal-related at all.

Normal forms do not matter, since that'd be outside information.
Fictional species should be tagged on case to case basis, but in that one Mew looks like a bipedal, vaguely feline character. Not like a feral animal. Therefore an anthro, albeit very toony one. I wouldn't apply feral or bestiality to that one.

I have absolutely no clue why you bring this case of outside information, that would be like saying that we can't apply the Pokémorph tag to Mew because the normal form is outside information and cannot be used, I just really don't get where you're trying to go with that.

But to me, Feral has two different meaning, an official one being
"This term is used to describe an animal character that is drawn in its natural (real) form."
Like I said, based on any real animal that we know and some misc like Dragons and such

Then there is the unofficial one used for game characters mostly based on animals but can used on any one of them like for example, Magnemite normal form would be feral in the unofficial manner.

Also beside really generic ears that can be cat ears, or even fox, Mew isn't really based on any animal whatsoever, it only has animal characteristics like those ears and paws

Lucario is another, more common point of contention for a lot of people

Neitsuke said:
I have absolutely no clue why you bring this case of outside information, that would be like saying that we can't apply the Pokémorph tag to Mew because the normal form is outside information and cannot be used, I just really don't get where you're trying to go with that.

Anthrofied, furried, pokemorph and other tags from that group are necessary exceptions to the rule. Because those cannot be tagged without outside information.

The same doesn't apply to forms. Anthro is for anthropomorphic animals, feral for feral animals. Tag what you see: if it looks like an anthropomorphic feline, then it doesn't belong under feral. And certainly, it's arguable whether that Mew looks like a feline. But it still looks like some kind of an animal, but with bipedal stance and vaguely human-like limbs. Hence anthro.

As for Magnemite? Anyone who tries to tag those as feral animals doesn't understand the tagging system well. Magnets are not animals. Best fit for them would probably be animate_inanimate.

Lucario/Lopunny is the main example of them being both feral/anthro (And I will repeat for clarification, when I say anthro, I mean anthropomorphic, as human-like posture and built body, not "with animal intelligence") being feral, in the unofficial meaning as them being Pokémon in their normal usual form, and anthro because, well, they're anthro animal walking on two legs.

And I'm not really sure why there is all those arguments about Mew being anthro or not, my main concern is Mew isn't an animal or animal-related at all, not that it is/isn't anthro/feral, so bestiality just doesn't sound something right to use

Pretty sure Mew should be semi-anthro anyway, not anthro

Lucario/Lopunny is the main example of them being both feral/anthro (And I will repeat for clarification, when I say anthro, I mean anthropomorphic, as human-like posture and built body, not "with animal intelligence") being feral, in the unofficial meaning as them being Pokémon in their normal usual form, and anthro because, well, they're anthro animal walking on two legs.

Yep. Which is why both are anthro under the current system. Lopunny looks like a lagomorph, and Lucario resemble canines or possibly jackals. Which aren't normally bipedal, therefore both Pokemon are 'anthro'.

I tried to argue against that system a long time ago, but after tagging those for years I've come to the conclusion that it's the only way to tag those consistently.

And I'm not really sure why there is all those arguments about Mew being anthro or not, my main concern is Mew isn't an animal or animal-related at all, not that it is/isn't anthro/feral, so bestiality just doesn't sound something right to use

Because bestiality only applies to non-feral on feral. If anthro is better fit for that Mew, the post shouldn't be tagged as human_on_feral or bestiality.

Pretty sure Mew should be semi-anthro anyway, not anthro

Those are currently not mutually exclusive. For the trial run, we agreed to use semi-anthro as a subtag, for the borderline cases. But those should still additionally be tagged as anthro or feral, whichever is more applicable.

Now it is being said as if any character has to either be tagged as anthro or feral, which sounds kind of silly. Example would be like Jigglypuff, there is no way this thing is anthro, and surely not feral at all.
Which would be saying the same for Mew, because it is no way anthro as it is, not with a head that takes 30% of the height, and just by how in general the body shape is, it just isn't anthro looking at all, and not feral since it isn't animal-related in any shape or form, just feral as "Being an original design Mew".

I know it has to do with the general interests of people in the furry fandom and those kind of characters are just rarer than the usual furry stuff, but chibi characters like kero and other cute characters usually don't fit either of those tags at all. There are also pure non-animal characters like plants, which can be anthro if they're not in their pseudo-feral form, but I don't think they have to either be anthro or feral.

But again my main issue isn't really on the anthro/feral side of things, but that Mew and bestiality just don't make sense to be together

Neitsuke said:
Now it is being said as if any character has to either be tagged as anthro or feral, which sounds kind of silly. Example would be like Jigglypuff, there is no way this thing is anthro, and surely not feral at all.

Not sure how you got that idea.
I just said earlier that animate_inanimate is probably the best fit for Magneton. And it's certainly not the only species that doesn't fit into feral/anthro. There's plenty of other form tags.

post #918251 post #584459

As for Jigglypuff, the new waddling_head category seems to suit them well enough.

Which would be saying the same for Mew, because it is no way anthro as it is, not with a head that takes 30% of the height, and just by how in general the body shape is, it just isn't anthro looking at all, and not feral since it isn't animal-related in any shape or form, just feral as "Being an original design Mew".

Then what do you suggest as a better alternative? They're not humanoid, and monster and alien are both poorly defined. The rest of the form tags would be even worse fits for Mews, as far as I can see.

You said "should still additionally be tagged as anthro or feral, whichever is more applicable" which pretty much implies it's one or the other, no possibility for "None"

Jigglypuff and other chars like it do have this "specie" tag to them, but it doesn't say anything about them being anthro or feral, which for Jigglypuff/Clefairy/Kirby, they are none of them.

And as I said, Mew in its original form simply doesn't need to be tagged feral or anthro at all since it doesn't fit the criteria. Mew is, to the very big stretch, a semi-anthro since it has a head/torso/legs/arms pattern you see on anthro, but isn't because the proportions are not human-like enough, as it is with post #557989 She has the head/torso/arms/legs parts and is bipedal, but I'm sure you wouldn't call this anthro-pomorphic, and certainly not feral.

I don't think the need to find a substitute tag for Mew is needed, Mew itself as a specie should be enough.

Also I should be more specific about when I say if something is anthro or not. While I noticed that anthro can mean human-like intelligence on characters (Which basically pretty much means anything alive that can talk can be considered anthro) when I use the word anthro, I mean the general physiology, as the head is about 1/7th of the total height, torso, arms, bipedal and so on. However the best way to understand my position to how I decide of something is anthro or feral is simply to compare the character and see if it's closer to a natural animal or a human, for example
post #950898
Even if it's bipedal, has arms and feet, this is clearly feral since real life otters are designed that way

Now if you take Mew, there is no animal to be compared to to begin with, mew isn't based on any animal whatsoever, it just has some very vague animal characteristics. So to me at least, this simply means Mew cannot be feral, but still can be anthro if it is morphed close to a human, for instance :
post #919120

So, as I said many times, to me, a normal Mew is simply not anthro nor feral, but more important, normal Mew + bestiality just sounds completely wrong

Mew is based on a stylized cat (hence the name Mew, an onomatopoeia for cat noises). I'm not entirely sure why you're insisting it's not based on anything.

Anyway, my opinion is as follows: Feral applies to creatures which are not humanlike, but are are animal-like. They don't need to look like any existing animal, they just need to look like something which could be an animal.

Jigglypuff doesn't look like an animal in any sense. Not, then, feral. Waddling Head works pretty well, as Genjar said. Mew looks like it could be an animal of some sort, and in it's standard depiction does not seem very humanlike, so it gets tagged as a feral. Lucario has clear humanlike features, so gets anthro.

It doesn't matter to me whether there is a real animal to relate the creature back to.

Then if Mew looks like a cat, which I still insist it's not, never saw a cat with a slim/round body and without whiskers and snout, then so be it, that's not my issue anyway.

My issue is if it's feral, then it gets the human_on_feral, so it gets bestiality, which I said like 5 times now, doesn't make any sense on Mew since it is not an animal, so something has to be done or clarified for cases like Mew

Neitsuke said:
Then if Mew looks like a cat, which I still insist it's not, never saw a cat with a slim/round body and without whiskers and snout, then so be it, that's not my issue anyway.

My issue is if it's feral, then it gets the human_on_feral, so it gets bestiality, which I said like 5 times now, doesn't make any sense on Mew since it is not an animal, so something has to be done or clarified for cases like Mew

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear.

Yes, if it's feral it gets the human_on_feral tag, and that means it gets the bestiality tag. That might seem like a problem to you but it doesn't seem like a problem to me.

I was saying that I do not share your problem with the tag and outside of "it feels wrong to have it there", I don't understand your problem either.

Neitsuke said:
You said "should still additionally be tagged as anthro or feral, whichever is more applicable" which pretty much implies it's one or the other, no possibility for "None"

Read it again. I was talking about the semi-anthro tag, which is a subtag for posts that are borderline anthro/feral. If it's neither anthro nor feral, semi-anthro doesn't apply.

Also I should be more specific about when I say if something is anthro or not. While I noticed that anthro can mean human-like intelligence on characters (Which basically pretty much means anything alive that can talk can be considered anthro)

Why do you keep bringing that up? Intelligence has never factored into form tagging. Trying to tag the level of intellect doesn't mesh well with twys, which is why those are tagged by the appearance. And a feral with human-like intelligence is still feral.

Clawdragons said:
Anyway, my opinion is as follows: Feral applies to creatures which are not humanlike, but are are animal-like. They don't need to look like any existing animal, they just need to look like something which could be an animal.

That's basically what I tried to suggest years ago, but when I tried it in practice, it didn't work at all with twys. 'Could be an animal' is too hard to define, and subjective. For instance, sergals were problematic by that system. Which is probably why we ended up using real animals as the baseline for 'feral', instead of real and fictional.

Because last time I was arguing about anthro characters, I got the comment that anthro (can) mean human-like intelligence, I just brought that up to make sure people would know what I mean by anthro (see forum #181649 Comment done on forum #181801)

Same thing to when I mentioned Lopunny/Lucario. I wasn't arguing about anything, I simply stated that some people would refer Lucario and Lopunny as both feral and anthro, as feral from being original design and anthro because their original design is anthro, nothing more.

Genjar said:
That's basically what I tried to suggest years ago, but when I tried it in practice, it didn't work at all with twys. 'Could be an animal' is too hard to define, and subjective. Which is probably why we ended up using real animals as the baseline for 'feral', instead of real and fictional.

But that seems to be the system we have in place now. Dragons, for instance, are often tagged with feral, despite not being related directly to any real animal.

Sergals have strong humanlike characteristics, so I don't see the problem there.

Dragons are a well established specie as for many other mythical creatures, so we should basically know how a feral dragon should look like, however I tend to argue that very often it's really easy to think a dragon can be either way, but the simple rule should be that bipedal and obvious anthro dragons are anthro while quadrupedal ones and dragons you typically see from story books are feral

Clawdragons said:
But that seems to be the system we have in place now. Dragons, for instance, are often tagged with feral, despite not being related directly to any real animal.

I thought of mentioning mythological animals when I wrote that, but didn't want to over-complicate the discussion.

Basically, real-world mythology is considered to be common knowledge. But artist information and fiction are outside information. There are exceptions to those guidelines, but dragons (and gryphons) fall solidly into 'everyone knows what one looks like'-category.

I've noticed that some of my Pokestuff uploads got tagged with the feral tag when they absolutely have no animal features whatsoever (Klefki)

Like I said, when I use feral about Pokemon, I refer to if the design is canon or not, not in a matter of real life animal instance, however from what I learned the feral tag is only used for the latter, so I would think the feral shouldn't be used for Klefki and others like it

Neitsuke said:
I've noticed that some of my Pokestuff uploads got tagged with the feral tag when they absolutely have no animal features whatsoever (Klefki)

Well, yes. Most posts have some mistags. Fix the ones that you spot. And if you notice someone mistagging something consistently (more than a few posts), report them.

The overall tagging consistency has been dropping rapidly lately, mostly because of the users who keep making pointless tags. The sheer number of new tags and posts has made it impossible to keep up with most tagging projects.

Genjar said:
The overall tagging consistency has been dropping rapidly lately, mostly because of the users who keep making pointless tags.

Honestly, I've been thinking a bit about this and I wonder if creating new category tags would be useful for this. It's really easy to notice when a tag is missing species tags, because that's in a category all on it's own. And users know that species tags are important BECAUSE they have a category all of their own (if they didn't know otherwise).

But there are a lot of important tags that are stuck in general. Gender / Sex tags, despite being incredibly important, are in the same category that includes any number of only mildly useful tags. I'd argue the same applies for anthro / feral tags, and number-in-image (solo, duo, etc).

I've gotten to the point where I honestly think adding in a new category might be the best solution to the issue of many important tags being left off images.

I've never understood why human_on_feral even exists considering it's the same exact thing as bestiality. Bestiality means "sexual intercourse between a person and an animal"...feral basically means just a standard animal...so...same thing.

Basically the only reason the human_on_feral tag should need to exist is because of these niche cases where the "feral" in question isn't a real animal and yet you can't use it for these niche cases because it's aliased to bestiality. Like...think about that.

Not even related to Pokemon, but like a feral dragon. A dragon is not a real animal, and yet if you tag it with "human_on_feral" it gets a bestiality tag too? Doesn't seem to make sense.

Dyrone said:
I've never understood why human_on_feral even exists considering it's the same exact thing as bestiality. Bestiality means "sexual intercourse between a person and an animal"...feral basically means just a standard animal...so...same thing.

Basically the only reason the human_on_feral tag should need to exist is because of these niche cases where the "feral" in question isn't a real animal and yet you can't use it for these niche cases because it's aliased to bestiality. Like...think about that.

Not even related to Pokemon, but like a feral dragon. A dragon is not a real animal, and yet if you tag it with "human_on_feral" it gets a bestiality tag too? Doesn't seem to make sense.

The tag bestiality, as we use it, encompasses human_on_feral, anthro_on_feral, and humanoid_on_feral. It includes both real and fictional animals.

If you are ever confused about tags, by clicking on the ? next to the tag name, or searching the wiki directly. This will let you know of any implications and aliases, as well as giving a description of the tag itself.

Also, human_on_feral implies bestiality - it's not aliased to it. Implications mean that if one tag is on an image, it automatically puts implied tags on. For instance, male/female implies male and female, because obviously an image with a male and a female paired together has both a male and a female in it. The tag man, however, is aliased to male, meaning that if you try to put it on a post it is replaced entirely by the male tag.

Again for a while now, I've noticed some Pokemon being tagged as Feral as if Feral means the way I use it for "Pokemon on their original design" and not as I've been told by people that Feral is used for characters that looks like an actual existing animal. post #1227414 which is a Blissey here, among some other Pokemon, have nothing remotely animal like and are still tagged as feral, then anthro_on_feral, to then finally get Bestiality, which again, doesn't make any sense because Blissey isn't animal-like whatsoever.

Actually, I even think anthro_on_feral shouldn't be aliased/imply/someword to bestiality, because bestiality by definition is a human on animals, not an anthro animal on a feral animal

Neitsuke said:
I even think anthro_on_feral shouldn't be aliased to bestiality,

It isn't aliased, it's implicated.

It does look a bit weird when an anthro wolf and feral wolf fucking each other is considered bestiality despite both of them supposedly being the same species. That'd be like calling human-on-dwarf porn interspecies despite both being the same species (or interracial if you want to go the "fantasy race" route).

BlueDingo said:
It isn't aliased, it's implicated.

It does look a bit weird when an anthro wolf and feral wolf fucking each other is considered bestiality despite both of them supposedly being the same species. That'd be like calling human-on-dwarf porn interspecies despite both being the same species (or interracial if you want to go the "fantasy race" route).

It has to do with the idea that "Anthropomorphised animals are actually aliens." They do not exist on this world, after all, whereas the feral one does. An alien who happens to have traits similar to a terrestrial creature does not make it the same species.

Take the Viper_(x-com), if one were with a perfectly generic, feral viper, that would definitely be bestiality, because they aren't actually the same species. We're to assume that any given anthro is in the same scenario compared to a feral of their base.

Has poképhilia been mentioned yet? It's a specific tag for sexual activity between pokemon and non-pokemon, which would include humans and non-pokemon anthros.

Though I'm not exactly sure how sexual activity between pokemon and non-pokemon feral animals are handled. I suppose it could be tagged with the general poképhilia tag, but then would also include a more specific pairing tag such as feral_on_feral. The specific pairing tag would of course vary between images depending on the participants (feral, human, humanoid, anthro, etc). Also remember that this is all based on TWYS, it should be tagged on what the character physically looks like in the image, based on our definitions for body types.

The Pokephilia tag seems to still use my Wiki definition I wrote for it, which is, sort of weird, and nostalgic (Weird that I'm not on the history).
But in my mind at least, that should be used for Human X Pokemon only, but people seem to use it for anything X Pokemon, which is a little dumb since the philia terminology refers to our point of view, as it is for Bestiality.

Also as a "purist", I would use that tag on Human X non-anthrofied/pokemorph Pokemon only : A Magnemite with a human body, arms and legs and everything isn't what I have in mind when it comes to the actual Pokemon philia, but since e621 doesn't really like to overcomplicate tags, any sort of Pokemon, and anything else X any sort of loosely represented Pokemon, seems to be for what the tag is been used for

Neitsuke said:
But in my mind at least, that should be used for Human X Pokemon only, but people seem to use it for anything X Pokemon, which is a little dumb since the philia terminology refers to our point of view, as it is for Bestiality.

The problem with that is anthro_on_feral, that should still be considered bestiality, correct?

Bestiality's meaning as we use it is about humans and animals, but e621 uses it as anything not-feral X feral. Like, take the word Pedophile, which refers to a human adult and a human child. Using this word for any adult X any young would make it sound really weird because the term is used in a human context from our point of view.

This is what's happening with bestiality and pokephilia, where non-human X feral/a non-animal Pokemon like Blissey being apparently feral X a human is considered bestiality - and a pokemorphed Muk with boobies and a human stature humping an anthro fox is considered pokephilia here on e621. It just sounds completely off and weird

Neitsuke said:
Bestiality's meaning as we use it is about humans and animals, but e621 uses it as anything not-feral X feral. Like, take the word Pedophile, which refers to a human adult and a human child. Using this word for any adult X any young would make it sound really weird because the term is used in a human context from our point of view.

This is what's happening with bestiality and pokephilia, where non-human X feral/a non-animal Pokemon like Blissey being apparently feral X a human is considered bestiality - and a pokemorphed Muk with boobies and a human stature humping an anthro fox is considered pokephilia here on e621. It just sounds completely off and weird

Believe it or not, this is not a website about humans. It would be kind of silly to use tags to refer solely to humans when they can be easily used under the definitions which say "Person," not "human."

I figured that out, but that doesn't change how it's extremely weird to have a picture labelled as Bestiality where there is 0 animal-like characters that's being humped. Doesn't really help that I'm contradictions for when to use Feral because on one side I'm told to use it for real animal like appearances, but on the other side I'm seeing people use it for any Pokemon that's not anthro. I want to remove the feral/bestiality/human_on_feral since they don't seem to be fitting, but recently I've seen some people getting banned for mistagging, so I'd rather not do anything, but then there's the possibility of getting banned for not doing anything and... But seriously, some direction to what is feral or not would be helpful

Neitsuke said:
I've noticed some Pokemon being tagged as Feral as if Feral means the way I use it for "Pokemon on their original design" and not as I've been told by people that Feral is used for characters that looks like an actual existing animal.

Characters are tagged based on TWYS. If a Pokemon looks anthro it should be tagged as anthro (including most depictions of Lucario). If you see something like post #1127827 tagged as feral please fix it.

The only exception to this is species tagging. If a character is tagged as a Pokemon it does not get tagged as a species. post #28525 is not a fox even though it looks like one. post #958937 is not a donkey. post #453500 is not a panda. I know it doesn't make sense but that's the current ruling (see forum #216888).

I do know about all that, problem is I then always see some weird exception like for Mew which is apparently feral even though it isn't looking like an actual animal at all, only loosely based on foetus and felines.

Blissey isn't anthro because she is a huge blob with little hands and feet, and not a feral either because I've never seen an egg shape animal walk outside or heard of anything like that before.

So if I understand all of that clearly, my first thought on Blissey shouldn't be tagged with feral/human/on/feral/bestiality were right, so I think, I can remove those tags without the fear of getting warned/banned

Neitsuke said:
I do know about all that, problem is I then always see some weird exception like for Mew which is apparently feral even though it isn't based on an animal at all.

mew is based on cat..

Ledian said:
mew is based on cat..

This is true. But, is Mewtwo as identical to a cat as Mew? I don't see as many similarities...

Ledian said:
mew is based on cat..

Mew is a combination of a cat and a human fetus.

FibS said:
Mew is a combination of a cat and a human fetus.

i did not know what i expected when i wandered into this thread, but this information was not that.

Neitsuke said:
I do know about all that, problem is I then always see some weird exception like for Mew which is apparently feral--

More often than not, Mew is depicted as anthro instead of feral. Tends to be very borderline, though.

Blissey isn't anthro because she is a huge blob with little hands and feet, and not a feral either because I've never seen an egg shape animal walk outside or heard of anything like that before.

Those usually get mistagged as feral because many users mistag pokephilia as bestiality, which automatically adds the feral tag.

So if I understand all of that clearly, my first thought on Blissey shouldn't be tagged with feral/human/on/feral/bestiality were right, so I think, I can remove those tags without the fear of getting warned/banned

Correct.

Genjar said:
Those usually get mistagged as feral because many users mistag pokephilia as bestiality, which automatically adds the feral tag.

Close enough
In my cases when I see that happen on my uploads, someone tags feral and/or human_on_feral, which automatically adds bestiality. I would think some people like me think of feral as "original, natural appearance" and use that tag on Pokemon that are drawn with their actual design.

Still though. Mew within its original design for me at least, isn't close to feral or anthro at all. Not feral because for the love of Gawd, it doesn't look like an actual animal, at all, and not anthro because it actually has some feral attributes like those massive hindlegs. Semi anthro is really the one tag I'd go with

Neitsuke said:
In my cases when I see that happen on my uploads, someone tags feral and/or human_on_feral, which automatically adds bestiality.

If those are mostly by the same user (and I suspect that they are), maybe you should report it. There's at least one mass tagger who's been repeatedly noted about it, and still hasn't learned to tag the forms right. I usually notice those months later, when it's too late to report.

I have a tagging project for sorting humanoids from anthros, but clearly I need to extend that to ferals. Had no idea that species such as Kirlia and Gardevoir have got tagged as feral this frequently.

Might need to check every Pokemon species one by one. :/

Still though. Mew within its original design for me at least, isn't close to feral or anthro at all.

It could be argued that Mew is sometimes depicted as a feral feline, but I'd agree that it usually isn't. Anthro, though, is a broad category. Single feral feature such as hindlegs doesn't disqualify characters from it. For instance, bipedal ponies with hoofs for hands are anthro.