Good evening,
I believe this is the right place to post this, please correct me if I am wrong, please! Here's the post:

I am quite a big fan of deertaurs/cervitaurs and am very pleased about the increase in its tag popularity. I've been tagging as much as I can but have run into quite an issue in discerning what to tag these posts.

I have seen almost anthro-like taurs spring up and am unaware as how to tag them. Here's some "Anthro Deertaur" instances: [explicit posts beware] post #60189 post #473528
Notice how the upper bodies are not human like a true deertaur: post #406395 post #306831

So, I would like some help figuring out how to tag the 'anthro taurs.' I would definitely NOT consider them deertaurs since they're traditionally to have an upper-body of a human. I was hoping for a tag to differentiate between the two.
Thanks for taking your time reading through here, give me a respone~

PrimandProper said:
[explicit posts beware]

i'm tempted to laugh given the site we're on but i won't.

anyway, anthro or not, a taur is a taur. meet the liontaur (character against the tree there). though i'm not sure what to call a deer-taur. i dubbed the species in my example as liontaur since i hadn't seen any others like it and still don't know if there happens to be an alternative name for the species.

deertaur? deer-taur? perhaps something else, i dunno.

that said, would the human/deer taurs you pointed out be considered centaurs? and if so, that raises a question of how to differentiate the various human/x (x being the animal species) taurs aside from simply calling them all centaurs. as far as i know, centaurs are typically human/horse hybrids.

:/ looking at the pics tagged as "taur". that looks like a mess. what are all these "taurs" referred to aside from the liontaur, centaur, and a few other specific species?

if we go down the path of the liontaur and foxtaur then we'd simply be tacking on the species like so: *insert species here*taur

If they've got a humanoid upper haulf, it's deer_humanoid alongside the standard deertaur tag, otherwise you just exclude that tag.

We should really have a taur_humanoid tag.

My intuition would tell me that the non-human taurs are taur and also furry, while the human-bodied ones are taur and not furry.

treos said:
i'm tempted to laugh given the site we're on but i won't.

anyway, anthro or not, a taur is a taur. meet the liontaur (character against the tree there). though i'm not sure what to call a deer-taur. i dubbed the species in my example as liontaur since i hadn't seen any others like it and still don't know if there happens to be an alternative name for the species.

deertaur? deer-taur? perhaps something else, i dunno.

that said, would the human/deer taurs you pointed out be considered centaurs? and if so, that raises a question of how to differentiate the various human/x (x being the animal species) taurs aside from simply calling them all centaurs. as far as i know, centaurs are typically human/horse hybrids.

:/ looking at the pics tagged as "taur". that looks like a mess. what are all these "taurs" referred to aside from the liontaur, centaur, and a few other specific species?

if we go down the path of the liontaur and foxtaur then we'd simply be tacking on the species like so: *insert species here*taur

I actually made a tag alias of cervitaur -> deertaur as they were two seperate tags. Now, I've been thinking of switching it the other way around as 'cervitaur' is its official name. However, it sounds equally as stupid. We don't call centaurs 'equitaurs.' Anyway, species names aside I want some way to filter out the 'anthrotaurs' [name wip ;)] for those whom simply traditional humanoid taurs. I really liked Furrin Gok's idea of having a taur_humanoid tag, but I think I'd prefer an anthro_taur tag or something of the sort, as they're the taur variations. Both tags could be included, to fit people's likes and dislikes. Further comments/conclusion?

PrimandProper said:
I actually made a tag alias of cervitaur -> deertaur as they were two seperate tags. Now, I've been thinking of switching it the other way around as 'cervitaur' is its official name. However, it sounds equally as stupid. We don't call centaurs 'equitaurs.' Anyway, species names aside I want some way to filter out the 'anthrotaurs' [name wip ;)] for those whom simply traditional humanoid taurs. I really liked Furrin Gok's idea of having a taur_humanoid tag, but I think I'd prefer an anthro_taur tag or something of the sort, as they're the taur variations. Both tags could be included, to fit people's likes and dislikes. Further comments/conclusion?

I think that all "humanoid" taurs should just be tagged taurs while all furry taurs are taurs and also furry.

Of course, e621 being furry-focused, it may be more intuitive in context to tag furry taurs as just taur, and human-taurs as taur and nonfurry.

FibS said:
I think that all "humanoid" taurs should just be tagged taurs while all furry taurs are taurs and also furry.

Of course, e621 being furry-focused, it may be more intuitive in context to tag furry taurs as just taur, and human-taurs as taur and nonfurry.

I don't think I necessarily agree with the idea of tagging nonfurry with humanoid taurs. I suppose it could go either way, but I believe a more effecient idea is either furry_taur and/or humanoid_taur.

FibS said:
I think that all "humanoid" taurs should just be tagged taurs while all furry taurs are taurs and also furry.

Of course, e621 being furry-focused, it may be more intuitive in context to tag furry taurs as just taur, and human-taurs as taur and nonfurry.

Being tauric inherintly removes not_furry in most cases (It would have to be some freaky humataur to not).

Furrin_Gok said:
Being tauric inherintly removes not_furry in most cases (It would have to be some freaky humataur to not).

If you're trying to say that the ancient Greek legends are "furry"...

Furrin_Gok said:
Being tauric inherintly removes not_furry in most cases (It would have to be some freaky humataur to not).

I'm inclined to agree. Having animal parts makes them furry(ish).
Humanoid_taur seems like an interesting idea. Though it'd be far easier to instead tag the ones that are fully, uh, furry (such as post #473528). Since those are much rarer.

Genjar said:
I'm inclined to agree. Having animal parts makes them furry(ish).
Humanoid_taur seems like an interesting idea. Though it'd be far easier to instead tag the ones that are fully, uh, furry (such as post #473528). Since those are much rarer.

Why not both :P

parasprite said:
Why not both :P

anthro_taur

Tagging project: taur -taur_humanoid -anthro_taur?

parasprite said:
Why not both :P

anthro_taur

I'm worried that those might then end up being tagged as anthro, which would wreak havoc on trying to keep tags such as anthro_on_taur consistent. And taur_humanoid has the same problem. If they're both taur and humanoid, then what happens to the humanoid_on_taur tag?

Not that I can think of a good alternative for either. Furry_taur? Beast_taur? Faunataur...?

Okay. So, after consideration and a pretty good few agree, I propose anthro_taur? Considering it's a general rarity, I say it's easier and makes more sense to tag anthro_taur than humanoid_taur since that would be redundant, as taurs where originally humanoid to begin with. Any more concerns before we go off tagging?

Also, Genjar. I believe the workaround would be anthro_on_taur -anthro_taur if it would be a problem for them.

PrimandProper said:
Also, Genjar. I believe the workaround would be anthro_on_taur -anthro_taur if it would be a problem for them.

I think the issue Genjar was more speaking about was a concern with people adding tags to the images that don't fit, since people tend to learn tagging by assumed example of other tags they see. For example, someone sees "anthro_taur" and decides to add the "anthro" tag as well, which would not be correct.

PrimandProper said:
Okay. So, after consideration and a pretty good few agree, I propose anthro_taur? Considering it's a general rarity, I say it's easier and makes more sense to tag anthro_taur than humanoid_taur since that would be redundant, as taurs where originally humanoid to begin with. Any more concerns before we go off tagging?

Non-human-inclusive taurs aren't exactly what I'd call "new" or "rare"; until I took a glance at a few taur pages, I actually even would have told you they outnumbered the more classical centaurish form here, but from what it looks like they seem fairly even. (Though I wasn't able to look thoroughly because the site is experiencing a ton of Cloudflare 5**/DNS errors and is near unusable for me at the moment)

I'm not sure if it really matters much about the original form; "Centaur" was obviously the original and specifically meant the human-torso on a horse-body thing... but that kind of quickly spunoff the concept to coin it's own generalized base word "Tauric" to define the overall creature form; that pretty much being "Any two creatures, one humanoid-form and one 4+ legged feral form, combined together with the resulting creature being spliced at the humanoid's waist and the feral's neck base" (Though that's using "humanoid" in it's general 2-legs, 2-arms, 1-head, walks upright, "human shaped" meaning and not the stricter e621 definition) It's not like it took the furry fandom to come along first before people were already replacing the base components of the centaur form with different things for the upper and lower halves besides humans and horses; And really the resulting form is the most important defining factor of a taur more so than what individual species it's comprised of.

Over anything else, I'd go for basing the new tag primarily on ease of usage, ease of tagging and maintenance, and avoiding the issues Genjar mentioned. I actually don't think "humantaur" would have been a bad suggestion if it weren't for the fact that it doesn't imply coverage of any of the other humanoid types: It sounds rather unique and also forces you to think of it as the intended subform we're trying to label since a human can't serve as the lower half of a taur by the form definition.

How about tagging any humanoid-upper taur with "classic-taur" as a sub form alongside the current tags?

It's the only thing I can think of at the moment that doesn't accidentally imply other invalid tags to the uninitiated while still being flexible enough to cover all the humanoid cases. The downside is that not everyone may get what it means at first glance, and might have to go read the associated wiki article to get the point. Along the same vein but a bit more cumbersome, we could try using two more-explicit tags: "humanoid-upper_taur" and "anthro-upper_taur"

Alternately, we could just try changing the earlier thread suggestions into two tags: "tauric_humanoid" and "tauric_anthro" because they change a word and sound kind of like a new thing... but that's only mildly abstracting the same problem that taur_humanoid and the other tags already had.

I think I've mentioned this idea before but I'm going to bring it up again because I think it would solve the issue here in a way.

It seems to me that it would be worthwhile to have a tag for characters who's upper bodies are human or humanoid an who's lower bodies are feral. So, many types of taurs, but also things like driders, mermaids, lamias, and so on.

This would have the advantage of being usable to distinguish different types of taurs, but would also be a useful catch-all term for characters of that sort that fit the same general scheme but which we currently have no term for.

Speaking of driders, do we really need both the drider and spidertaur tags? Seems like we could alias one to the other.

Hey guys, I'm SO very sorry for going dark for two weeks. I just kind of had a hard heartbreak and I haven't felt energetic recently. I'm very thankful and impressed by your nice report on this. I think we should both have humanoid_taur and anthro_taur. I don't know if humanoid and anthro wouldn't apply. I mean, the upper half is anthro or humanoid. But, I really think we should settle on those two.

parasprite said:
Why not both :P

anthro_taur

This sounds interesting

-

Genjar said:
I'm worried that those might then end up being tagged as anthro, which would wreak havoc on trying to keep tags such as anthro_on_taur consistent. And taur_humanoid has the same problem. If they're both taur and humanoid, then what happens to the humanoid_on_taur tag?

[..]

Agreed, it's a similar situation with semi-anthro ( anthro + taur, instead of anthro + feral)

-

Hm,

Should we have a single umbrella tag for all hybrid body type cases like these?

• Where the anthro body type is combined with other (separate?) body types, like taur, human, humanoid, feral

There's already the hybrid tag, but that's for any kind of combination, not just the (supposedly) mutually-exclusive body types

-

Related discussion about cases like these in here:

• forum #189471 - Advanced tag discussion: Mutually-exclusive Body Styles (anthro, feral, human, humanoid, 'semi-anthro' etc.) (Apr. 2016)

Also, wiki for taur says:

"Note that taurs are not to be tagged with feral or human"

What about humanoid?

titanmelon said:
Also, wiki for taur says:

"Note that taurs are not to be tagged with feral or human"

What about humanoid?

forum #189477

Why do you keep asking the same questions over and over? ...you've been going on about some of these for close to three years.

Glad you pointed that out, it's probably because those things are still an issue for close to three years. (e.g the taur wiki)
(also wanted to add that in here so people can see it in case they didn't read the other one)

-

Yes. The main types (first five in the wiki) are exclusive. Only one should be tagged per character, with the special exception of mid-transformation posts.

Is that also a yes for this?

If the wiki is going to be considered one of the more official sources of tagging info, I think questions like these need to confirmed by more than just two people who already agree about it

(or a system put in place to make that process less redundant at least)

Clawdragons said:
It seems to me that it would be worthwhile to have a tag for characters who's upper bodies are human or humanoid an who's lower bodies are feral. So, many types of taurs, but also things like driders, mermaids, lamias, and so on.

PrimandProper said:
I think we should both have humanoid_taur and anthro_taur. I don't know if humanoid and anthro wouldn't apply. I mean, the upper half is anthro or humanoid. But, I really think we should settle on those two.

These are also interesting suggestions, if a method for reliably finding/identifying posts like those doesn't already exist

Again, tags like humanoid_taur would completely destroy humanoid_on_taur and related tags. Because it'd no longer make sense to tag those, if taurs are turned into a humanoid subtag. Two taurs would then be tagged as humanoid_on_humanoid, which certainly wouldn't make it easier to find taur pairings.

Also note that the *_on_taur aliases and implications were approved by the admins. So yes, it has long ago been confirmed as an exclusive category. I never add anything in the wiki that hasn't been approved either here or in the chat or mails. (That's also why the body type wiki is still missing several types: there's quite a few that haven't been confirmed as valid.)

Simpler solution would be to create an another tag similar to animal_head: we could tag half-human centaurs as human_head or human_torso... Such tags might get overtagged (human_head for all humans, instead of just hybrids), but animal_head seems to be working out well so far.

Genjar said:
Again, tags like humanoid_taur would completely destroy humanoid_on_taur and related tags. Because it'd no longer make sense to tag those, if taurs are turned into a humanoid subtag. Two taurs would then be tagged as humanoid_on_humanoid, which certainly wouldn't make it easier to find taur pairings.

Also note that the *_on_taur aliases and implications were approved by the admins. So yes, it has long ago been confirmed as an exclusive category. I never add anything in the wiki that hasn't been approved either here or in the chat or mails. (That's also why the body type wiki is still missing several types: there's quite a few that haven't been confirmed as valid.)

Simpler solution would be to create an another tag similar to animal_head: we could tag half-human centaurs as human_head or human_torso... Such tags might get overtagged (human_head for all humans, instead of just hybrids), but animal_head seems to be working out well so far.

If somebody tags a Taur_on_taur as humanoid_on_humanoid then they're breaking the rules. Humanoid taurs are still taurs for the sake of on tagging. Humanoid on taur is for a non-taur humanoid with a taur, be the taur humanoid or anthro.

Clawdragons said:
Speaking of driders, do we really need both the drider and spidertaur tags? Seems like we could alias one to the other.

Yeah, we don't need them both. Alias spidertaur -> drider. A Drider already is a "Spidertaur," and it's the more popular name.

Furrin_Gok said:
If somebody tags a Taur_on_taur as humanoid_on_humanoid then they're breaking the rules. Humanoid taurs are still taurs for the sake of on tagging. Humanoid on taur is for a non-taur humanoid with a taur, be the taur humanoid or anthro.

If it's called humanoid_taur, I am absolutely sure that it's going to be tagged as both humanoid and taur.

Furrin_Gok said:
Yeah, we don't need them both. Alias spidertaur -> drider. A Drider already is a "Spidertaur," and it's the more popular name.

Drider is a species from Dungeons and Dragons, and they're specifically half-elf/half-spiders (drow elf + spider). Not all spidertaurs are elvish.

Genjar said:
If it's called humanoid_taur, I am absolutely sure that it's going to be tagged as both humanoid and taur.

Which is why they would be reported for breaking the rules,since we aren't supposed to tag that like that.

Drider is a species from Dungeons and Dragons, and they're specifically half-elf/half-spiders (drow elf + spider). Not all spidertaurs are elvish.

Not how we use it here. This is furry art, not D&D art, so Driders have the upper body of anything.

Furrin_Gok said:
Which is why they would be reported for breaking the rules,since we aren't supposed to tag that like that.

We have tags such as animal_humanoid which are tagged as humanoid. Wiki or not, it'd be quite unfair to punish users for not noticing that 'humanoid_taur' or 'taur_humanoid' is an exception among dozens of such tags. Not to mention the amount of clean up that'd need.

Furrin_Gok said:
Not how we use it here. This is furry art, not D&D art, so Driders have the upper body of anything.

How does that make any sense at all? Drider are a specific half-elf species from Dungeons and Dragons. Tagging non-driders as drider is no different from tagging all taurs as centaur, or all anthro reptiles as kobold or dragonborn.

If it can't be properly tagged, then aliasing drider -> spidertaur seems like a valid idea.

Those are all good points, just wanted to add that if drider and spidertaur ever gets aliased,

drider should probably be aliased to something else first, like drider_(d&d) or whatever

So the actual drow posts don't get lost with the hybrid body types

I've been thinking about the naming problem for a while.
How about this idea: add animal_taur (for ones such as foxtaur and chakat) as a taur subtag. That'd keep it separate from other categories, and the name wouldn't be easy to confuse. Anyone who wants to search for taurs with human torsos could just search for 'taur -animal_taur'.

Genjar said:
I've been thinking about the naming problem for a while.
How about this idea: add animal_taur (for ones such as foxtaur and chakat) as a taur subtag. That'd keep it separate from other categories, and the name wouldn't be easy to confuse. Anyone who wants to search for taurs with human torsos could just search for 'taur -animal_taur'.

What if both are included? That's why it'd help to have both tags.

Im aware this is a year old thru thought better to continue on here rather then making a new thread.

One of the previous commenters on this thread mentioned using "classic_taur" as a suggestion for identifying taurs that follow the classical design of taurs always having a humanoid upper body, a anthro upper body is a design of the fandom and didnt exist prior to the fandom. Apparently it just got ignored but seems pretty sound to me, doesnt have the problems genjar has stated in regards to all the other suggestions...
And use "beast_taur" for taurs that have a non-humanoid upper half.

Also i would like to tackle a problem with part of the taur description in the wiki. I would like to propose the removal of "multi-legged" from the taur wiki it has become abundantly clear that that is not seen as a requirement for people that actually deal or have tauric characters and seems to be something only genjar has explicitly insisted on keeping while it wasnt relevant to the rest of the staff(existing and former).
The fact also that no other place makes multiple legs a requirement to be taur for good reason because not all species that are used for the lower half have legs or are quadruped.

post #649863 post #949581 post #417315 post #1096859 post #17979 post #740513 post #1001272 post #1131097 post #947171 post #1049625

for reference tauric marine creatures would include a whole lower torso, not just a tail and in regards to nagas/lamias what we refer to as a tail is actually still its body, tail only accounts for the last couple of inches on the length after genitalia.

PS:Except for genjars edits and TastesLikeGreen's edit all other editors have not made legs a requirement, some of those editors were former staff as well.

That is exactly what I was talking about. Trying to include other things under taur muddles it too much and causes overlap with other form. For instance, post #1001272 is a naga, and post #17979 is split_form (plus monster_girl).

Tagging posts such as post #649863 and post #740513 as 'taur' reduces searchability. Even merfolk is closer, and those are usually tagged as such.

And since split_form exists, it's already possible to search for different types of taurs:

post #473528 - taur -split_form
post #1285534 - taur split_form

they are not another form thou, they are still taurs who just happen to be derived from a species that is legless.
I never implied that that wasnt a naga but it is also a taur, just like chakats or dridders, naga or lamia are a;so a type of taur, snakes do not have legs so consequently a tauric form derived from a snake will also not have legs.

And sorry merfolk is not closer, it includes 2 legged merfolk and characters that have a fish tail but not a full fish body.
I dont at all see how those examples of marine taur i linked would muddle searchibility, they again are not a different form by just not having 2 sets of legs.

As far as split_form goes, it could have been a solution but it seems to rely on both halves to be a different species which is not alwasy a case as seen in the dinosaur and avian taurs i linked previously. It wouldnt solve "monster girls" that also have a anthropomorphic upper body derived form their lower body's species.

Again, that is not how the tag is used here. Try searching GIS or Furaffinity for taur, and all you'll get is quadrupedal (or 6+ legged) ones. Taur is tagged only for specific type of 'tauric' creatures, because that's how the term is used in furdom.

Taur share a common shape, which is what the form tags are for. Trying to lump creatures that look completely different under one tag is no good for searchability.

Form-wise, merfolk is a closer match to the marine creatures that you posted. Though post #949581 seems more like some kind of fusion. If anything, I'd tag it as monster.

Genjar said:
Again, that is not how the tag is used here. You're focusing too much on dictionary definition. Trying to lump creatures that look completely different under one tag is no good for searchability, and searchability is the main purpose of tagging.

To be precise how you personally view how it should be treated here, not in the interests of everyone. as stated before your the one who put the requirement in, every prior staff member who has edited the wiki has made no requirement for having legs.

Im also not using a dictionary definition genjar im using the meaning as is perceived in the community at large.

Regarding searchibility, they do not look different as to what is actually being searched for when using taur, a character with a complete morphic upper body and a lower body of a complete feral torso joined together, that is all there is to it, and always was until you imposed your personal ideal on the wiki. taur is as generalized as is anthro in design, your edits thou esentially set it up to be similar to "biped_anthro" a tag of course doesnt exist and if it did it would be invalidated quite quick because it would be redundant as well as being erroneous as not anthros are actually biped just as not all ferals are quadruped.

Darou said:
To be precise how you personally view how it should be treated here, not in the interests of everyone. as stated before your the one who put the requirement in, every prior staff member who has edited the wiki has made no requirement for having legs.

No, these were discussed in detail with whole administration, the form definitions were approved by multiple admins.

I'm not gonna argue it further. Tag it contrary to the wiki at your own risk.

Genjar said:
Again, that is not how the tag is used here. Try searching GIS or Furaffinity for taur, and all you'll get is quadrupedal (or 6+ legged) ones. Taur is tagged only for specific type of 'tauric' creatures, because that's how the term is used in furdom.

protip: most, not all

i have my self linked to the wikifur article in some prior discussions on taur to exemplify that legs are not a requirement, so thats not exsactly new to me.

Also i have searched taur on FA, that is were i found most of the taurs of the avian and dinosaur kind i linked in the last page originally.

What is GIS?

Form-wise, merfolk is a closer match to the marine creatures that you posted. Though post #949581 seems more like some kind of fusion. If anything, I'd tag it as monster.

monster, really?? umm far is i now they are usually creepy or grotesque and something that is a amalgamation of multiple unrecognizable species traits.

Genjar said:
No, these were discussed in detail with whole administration, the form definitions were approved by multiple admins.

I'm not gonna argue it further. Tag it contrary to the wiki at your own risk.

You by chance wouldnt have a thread that explicitly states approval and not just a thread that has simply gone inactive without a conclusion to the discussion, or all private?

Also i dont really have to, privileged members as well as some active staff members do tag contrary to your belief genjar. i edit wikis more then i tag posts.
And that was the reason for reviving this thread because i wanted to hear the opinions from others, i have always known yours you have always been opposed to any change what so ever for any reason to your edits but from what ive seen no one else in staff or privilages has actually decided on any direction in regards to the subject.

Darou said:
You by chance wouldnt have a thread that explicitly states approval and not just a thread that has simply gone inactive without a conclusion to the discussion, or all private?

You have my word as an ex-staff in good standing. The wiki entry (and everything in the tag_group:body_types) is official, and that's all you need to know as a member-level user.

Also i dont really have to, privileged members as well as some active staff members do tag contrary to your belief genjar.

Well, Ruku, be sure to report them if you spot any more of those. Took a look at recent ones, and I don't see any high ranking users mistagging it, except for some Tumblr re-uploads where the tags got copied from the old post.