Snout is an extremely common feature among anthropomorphic and feral characters alike, excluding mostly invertebrates and avians; this happens in such a way that I can't see what usefulness the 'snout' tag could truly have (even if it wasn't terribly undertagged).
Also, we have tags like 'humanoid_face', 'beak', 'proboscis', 'trunk' etc. that are way more specific; additionally, we could use 'long_snout' (or similar tag) for snouts that are longer than usual.

I brought this to forum basically to know which is the general opinion regarding this subject matter, as well as to discuss if the referred tag really should be invalidated or if we should mobilize extra effort in order to tag it properly instead.

O16 said:
additionally, we could use 'long_snout' (or similar tag) for snouts that are longer than usual.

Define "longer than usual".

BlueDingo said:
Define "longer than usual".

I guess this would need more discussion to be properly defined, but I was imagining something similar to elephant shrews.

O16 said:
I guess this would need more discussion to be properly defined, but I was imagining something similar to elephant shrews.

So long in general as opposed to long for that species. That can work but what relative measurements should we go with, snout length / snout height or snout length / skull size?

BlueDingo said:
So long in general as opposed to long for that species. That can work but what relative measurements should we go with, snout length / snout height or snout length / skull size?

I prefer the later. In this case the comparation length/height seems closer to concepts like 'thin' and 'thick' than actual 'long' and 'short'.
Perhaps we also need to clarify the difference between skull size and skull lenght.

O16 said:
I prefer the later. In this case the comparison length/height seems closer to concepts like 'thin' and 'thick' than actual 'long' and 'short'.

Then again, short things and thick things do look similar when there's nothing else to compare them to. Either way, the height and width are closer to each other than usual.

O16 said:
Perhaps we also would need to clarify the difference between skull size and skull length.

Good thing that when it comes to furries, the width and depth of their skulls (minus the snout) are about the same a lot of the time.

BlueDingo said:
So long in general as opposed to long for that species. That can work but what relative measurements should we go with, snout length / snout height or snout length / skull size?

A length that equals the depth of one and a half skulls(the shrew exsample) but then again snout is often considered it self part of the skull rather then just the bones that form the "braincase".

I'm I don't really support this alias considering that I do find it a as vital of a tag as digitigrade or plantigrade, I wouldn't be in a rush for Invalidating it but if this alias should happen then a short_snout tag needs to be made considering we have short and long forms for tail too for example...

Ruku said:
A length that equals the depth of one and a half skulls (the shrew example) but then again snout is often considered it self part of the skull rather then just the bones that form the "braincase".

The bone part of the snout is part of the skull but to make the comparison work, we have to assume it isn't.

1 - 'thin' and 'thick' use comparisons between characteristics of a same object. e.g. this bacterium is thin.

2 - 'long' and 'short' require comparisons with some other factors. e.g. since roads usually have x kilometers, a road with 2x kilometers is considered long.

If we use the first concept, then a snout could be considered "long" event if it were microscopic (ok, that is a bit hyperbolic, but I guess you understood).