It's been bugging me for a while now how werewolf as a tag pretty much violates tag what you see, partly since not everybody seems to agree on what should count as a werewolf on a website where half of the content is about anthropomorphic beasts, and partly because TWYS can often be interpreted in more lenient ways when it comes to species. Most discussions regarding aliases and implications to and from were-* tags tend to have people debating on the exact meaning of those tags in the context of furry art ([1] [2] [3]) and that should probably be a sign that "What counts as a werewolf" is a question that needs a clear answer.

I've personally always been more of the opinion that an image should show traces of a transformation having taken place or make it clear that the character in question is a savage beast and not a "person" anymore. Looking at images like post #1354849, however, I'm on the fence about identification via other physical characteristics (slit pupils, significant size difference, etc.) and that's more of less why I left it at that when I made the wiki edit that added the list of "what should be there for the image to qualify " last week...

deep breath
yes-im-sorry-for-doing-that-without-asking-about-it-on-the-forum-first-and-i-wont-do-it-again-please-dont-hurt-me

Now, if we were to take this as a baseline (please make suggestions on what you think should or shouldn't count), the worgen -> werewolf implication would need to go (and be replaced with a simple -> wolf implication) unless there are other indications within the image that make it match the requirements. I know it's not the first time the implication has been criticized, but werewolf ought to have more meaning than most other species tags, otherwise it would just be redundant with the regular wolf tag.

This is probably going to set a precedent for other were-* tags if we do manage to agree on a definition, so there's that too.

Oh cool, it's this song and dance again. Not sure what will come of it this time, but let's go a few rounds and see what happens.

_{I'm not trying to be rude or anything. It's just that this topic's been brought up several times before and not much has happened each time.}

+1, I agree. A lot of the times people even ending up tagging wolf and werewolf together anyways and really, unless it's super obvious or distinct, it seems as if it's an unneeded addition to posts as of right now.

But yeah, I feel we need to have some baseline as to what makes something "were" in an image's context, which would be things like showing transformation, showing a more beastly nature, hugely muscular, etc etc.

BlueDingo said:
Oh cool, it's this song and dance again. Not sure what will come of it this time, but let's go a few rounds and see what happens.

_{I'm not trying to be rude or anything. It's just that this topic's been brought up several times before and not much has happened each time.}

Sometimes, it doesn't take much to get a bunch of tags cleared up. Naga and lamia used to be like that, but add a proper wiki page with a good explanation and the rest might very well sort itself out.

In our case, though, it'd probably be good to make sure everybody agrees, especially since that's going to need some implication rewiring.

too bad you cant even use savagery these days or even the full moon to varify werewolves, sence hollywood has kinda thrown a shovel into the traditional concept of what is a werewolf with movies like twilight or wolfgirl...

seems only useful a tag when it is visible that transformation has actually taken place...

It worth noting other fictional species like Cerberus also suffer the same problem of being unclear about the difference between the regular and the mythlogical(ex. multi headed regular husky vs. mythological cerberus)

I agree that something should be done, however, unlike Naga and lamia I don’t think it can feasibly happen. Nagas and lamias are distictly different were as the line between anthro and werewolf is blurry. I would say they are more animalistic than anthros, but even thisnis down to each indivual persons interpretation of what makes something an anthro. The only things I can think of that can maybe at least helpnfix this are:

-use the archetypical werewolf (good luck agreeing on what that is) as the qualifying body type
-get rid of the worgen->werewolf implication, in my opinion not only do I think worgens count as a different species because they don’t have tails but alot of the worgen pictures I saw when I searched the term looked like anthro wolves, not werewolves so I think getting rid of this can clean up the werewolf tag
-use archetypical werewolf lore stuff together like full moon, transformations, etc. (This might be harder as artistic mediums are always coming up with there own definition of what a werewolf is)

What I think should qualify as a werewolf:
post #1145592 post #1132515

What I think doesn’t qualify as a werewolf:
post #1283353 post #673396

Something semi-related I want to bring up.

A dog at any level of anthro is still called a dog. A cat at any level of anthro is still called a cat. If fact, pretty much every animal at any level of anthro is still considered that animal... except for wolf, which is considered a werewolf at this specific level of anthro and just a wolf at any other level.

Notice that a werewolf (which literally means man-wolf) is essentially an anthro wolf and almost always depicted as such yet has no wolf implication?

yeah honestly i think that werewolf should be used only on images with stuff like

-visible full moon
-transformation
-when character is visibly a werewolf (like naturally lacking fur coating, physical humanoid traits and so on)
-clear symbolism hinting character being werewolf

What if the species in the image is 100% from some franchise that calls it a "werewolf"? TWYS and whatnot, but we're perfectly fine with going to the source material for names.

Strikerman said:
What if the species in the image is 100% from some franchise that calls it a "werewolf"? TWYS and whatnot, but we're perfectly fine with going to the source material for names.

werewolf_(franchise name)?

BlueDingo said:
Something semi-related I want to bring up.

A dog at any level of anthro is still called a dog. A cat at any level of anthro is still called a cat. If fact, pretty much every animal at any level of anthro is still considered that animal... except for wolf, which is considered a werewolf at this specific level of anthro and just a wolf at any other level.

Notice that a werewolf (which literally means man-wolf) is essentially an anthro wolf and almost always depicted as such yet has no wolf implication?

Well, that's why I think we should probably stress the "not (quite) a person" aspect for were-* tags. Take each of these posts, for instance :

post #442631 post #830459 post #785342 post #866219

Would anything seem wrong if you replaced the werewolf in those images with a human? Would any meaning be lost? Do you think that said werewolf might still be allowed to or lucid enough to drive a car in this state? Does it have the right to vote?

Jokes aside, that would straight up make every transformation images safe to tag as such (you gotta turn into *something*, so just replacing everything with humans wouldn't work) and it could still be meaningful enough of a distinction to sort out the rest, even though it's probably not enough on its own.

SharkFetish said:
get rid of the worgen->werewolf implication, in my opinion not only do I think worgens count as a different species because they don’t have tails but alot of the worgen pictures I saw when I searched the term looked like anthro wolves, not werewolves so I think getting rid of this can clean up the werewolf tag

Every Worgen is a werewolf, and their design is quite werewolfish anyways so it's not like it completely breaks TWYS. Also, I don't think a werewolf needs a tail, plenty of werewolves in popular media don't have one. If you don't like seeing the worgen for whatever reason you can always search "werewolf -worgen" or just blacklist the tag entirely.

SharkFetish said:
What I think should qualify as a werewolf:
post #1145592

Ok, so you're saying that if we removed the full moon from the background that thing would suddenly cease to be a werewolf? It LOOKS like the most stereotypical werewolf ever, and yet if you just remove the full moon it's "nah...that's just an anthro wolf now." That's ridiculous.

Dyrone said:
Every Worgen is a werewolf, and their design is quite werewolfish anyways so it's not like it completely breaks TWYS. I don't think a werewolf needs a tail, plenty of werewolves in popular media don't have one. If you don't like seeing the worgen for whatever reason you can always search "werewolf -worgen" or just blacklist the tag entirely.

What in their design is specifically "werewolfish" that isn't already covered by the wolf tag or isn't up to the artist's interpretation. As I said earlier, if we can't figure out a way to make werewolf as a species visibly different from just wolf, we might as well just not have that tag at all.

Fifteen said:
What in their design is specifically "werewolfish" that isn't already covered by the wolf tag or isn't up to the artist's interpretation. As I said earlier, if we can't figure out a way to make werewolf as a species visibly different from just wolf, we might as well just not have that tag at all.

This is their base design

How is that not a werewolf?

Dyrone said:
This is their base design

How is that not a werewolf?

No one is arguing that the base design of worgen's aren't werewolf based.

What's being argued is a lot of artists portray them as much more wolf-like and very little werewolf-ish, as most art of them I've seen look much more like wolves with no tails. This, being a TWYS site, makes a lot of fanart of the species look very non-were and therefore... rly not well tagged imho.

I feel werewolf on worgen should be tagged on a case by case basis, and worgen gets implicated to wolf instead of werewolf. This way the more werewolf looking worgen content can be tagged properly, while the species is still implied to wolf.

facelessmess said:
I feel werewolf on worgen should be tagged on a case by case basis, and worgen gets implicated to wolf instead of werewolf. This way the more werewolf looking worgen content can be tagged properly, while the species is still implied to wolf.

Doesn't matter how the artists draw them. As long as there is significant proof that it is a worgen it should also be tagged werewolf, that's why it's aliased in the first place. Sometimes you have go a bit beyond TWYS, as long as it's not completely unreasonable under TWYS, which worgens are not.

I just think it's dumb to basically divide a fantasy race on whether or not they look "savage" enough. Like a scary worgen is a werewolf and a cute worgen is suddenly...not? It seems like a stupid delineation to make.

Dyrone said:
I just think it's dumb to basically divide a fantasy race on whether or not they look "savage" enough. Like a scary worgen is a werewolf and a cute worgen is suddenly...not? It seems like a stupid delineation to make.

Moreso than the divide between wolf and werewolf?

werewolf -wolf - 3200+ results

BlueDingo said:
Moreso than the divide between wolf and werewolf?

werewolf -wolf - 3200+ results

I'm speaking specifically about worgen here.

BlueDingo said:
Moreso than the divide between wolf and werewolf?

werewolf -wolf - 3200+ results

That really begs the question as to why werewolf doesn't already imply wolf. It shouldn't be to keep 'wolfman' type werewolves out of the 'wolf' tag, they're as relevant as anime girls with pointy ears.

regsmutt said:
It shouldn't be to keep 'wolfman' type werewolves out of the 'wolf' tag, they're as relevant as anime girls with pointy ears.

I'm guessing by 'wolfman type', you mean the more human-looking ones. They would likely fall under wolf_humanoid.

regsmutt said:
That really begs the question as to why werewolf doesn't already imply wolf. It shouldn't be to keep 'wolfman' type werewolves out of the 'wolf' tag, they're as relevant as anime girls with pointy ears.

The tag chain for those tags is all kinds of messed up. Lycan (which should be aliased to werewolf) doesn't imply either wolf or werewolf.

So long as we can't agree on a tagging policy for werewolf, though, I don't think we could really do much about the aliasing rules. Which is why I think it's important that we have that discussion.

Dyrone said:
I just think it's dumb to basically divide a fantasy race on whether or not they look "savage" enough. Like a scary worgen is a werewolf and a cute worgen is suddenly...not? It seems like a stupid delineation to make.

Because worgen being werewolves then veers into "tag what you know", which is a problem for the werewolf tag as a whole, since there's no agreed upon way to distinguish an anthro wolf from a werewolf under the current policy.

Fifteen said:
Because worgen being werewolves then veers into "tag what you know"

And? I already addressed this twice. I'm not going to restate my stance on it again simply because you've decided to not read my posts.

Fifteen said:
there's no agreed upon way to distinguish an anthro wolf from a werewolf under the current policy.

There's plenty of tips on the wiki about how to distinguish a werewolf from a wolf humanoid. Just because you haven't bothered to look doesn't mean no resources exist.

Dyrone said:
There's plenty of tips on the wiki about how to distinguish a werewolf from a wolf humanoid. Just because you haven't bothered to look doesn't mean no resources exist.

Like I said in my OP, I'm the one who added those last week and I'd really prefer we agreed upon something instead.

And going beyond TWYS is hardly an answer. Consider that we're not supposed to tag Pokémon based on their template species, so crobat shouldn't be tagged bat even though it's meant to be a "bat pokémon" and pretty clearly looks like a bat any way you look at it. As far as I'm concerned, that's a good thing, since it means I don't have to go through hundreds of Renamon images whenever I feel like looking up foxes. The worgen -> werewolf implication is just one of those lore implications that I feel just makes searching for images of "proper" werewolves harder than it needs to be.

Tell me frankly : Lore accuracy aside, what's the benefit of having such an alias?

Dyrone said:
Doesn't matter how the artists draw them. As long as there is significant proof that it is a worgen it should also be tagged werewolf, that's why it's aliased in the first place. Sometimes you have go a bit beyond TWYS, as long as it's not completely unreasonable under TWYS, which worgens are not.

that is not how it works. if you cant see from image that its a werewolf, it should not be tagged as such. just because its recognizable as werewolf based species doesnt suddenly qualify it for werewolf tag. just like you cant tag all pikachus as rodent purely based on the fact that pikachus are based on rodents.

Commander_Eggplant said:
that is not how it works. if you cant see from image that its a werewolf, it should not be tagged as such. just because its recognizable as werewolf based species doesnt suddenly qualify it for werewolf tag. just like you cant tag all pikachus as rodent purely based on the fact that pikachus are based on rodents.

there's a news bulletin at the top that literally says it's okay to tag the family species of a given Pokemon

Commander_Eggplant said:
that is not how it works. if you cant see from image that its a werewolf, it should not be tagged as such. just because its recognizable as werewolf based species doesnt suddenly qualify it for werewolf tag. just like you cant tag all pikachus as rodent purely based on the fact that pikachus are based on rodents.

It's more that you can't tag them as a specific species, as you can tag them as the base species (canine for renamon for example, instead of the specific "fox")

Strikerman said:
there's a news bulletin at the top that literally says it's okay to tag the family species of a given Pokemon

you still cant tag it as rodent if it doesnt look like rodent at all in some specific piece. sometimes canine or feline might suit better.

Commander_Eggplant said:
If you cant see from image that its a werewolf, it should not be tagged as such.

If it meets the criteria for a worgen, then it meets the criteria for a werewolf, even if it's pushing the boundaries a little. This isn't about tagging a giraffe as a werewolf because in some fantasy universe they're considered werewolves, stop straw-manning.

Strikerman said:

Commander_Eggplant said:
just like you cant tag all pikachus as rodent purely based on the fact that pikachus are based on rodents.

there's a news bulletin at the top that literally says it's okay to tag the family species of a given Pokemon

In the gaming community this is what we refer to as "getting rekt".

Dyrone said:
If it meets the criteria for a worgen, then it meets the criteria for a werewolf, even if it's pushing the boundaries a little. This isn't about tagging a giraffe as a werewolf because in some fantasy universe they're considered werewolves, stop straw-manning.

again, if nothing in image suggest that character is a werewolf, it fucking should not be tagged as such. "worgens are werewolves" is purely external knowledge and should have absolutely no weight in tagging

In the gaming community this is what we refer to as "getting rekt".

again, if some pokemon looks more like dog despite of being based on mouse, it gets tagged as canine. the canon information has no weight in tagging this shit.

Commander_Eggplant said:
again, if nothing in image suggest that character is a werewolf, it fucking should not be tagged as such. "worges are werewolves" is purely external knowledge and should have absolutely no weight in tagging

I honestly don't care about your opinion on this at all, it's already implicated, and you're straw-manning yet again by suggesting that a worgen looks NOTHING like a werewolf. Even the most cartoony versions of worgen still look like werewolves to some degree.

And TWYK can factor into tags, the mother_and_son tag, for instance, is completely dependent on TWYK in a lot of cases. Yall need to stop acting like using TWYK is a cardinal sin that can NEVER be committed, it's simply wrong, and honestly makes you look like you have a very base understanding of tagging in general.

Dyrone said:
I honestly don't care about your opinion on this at all, it's already implicated, and you're straw-manning yet again by suggesting that a worgen looks NOTHING like a werewolf. Even the most cartoony versions of worgen still look like werewolves to some degree.

And TWYK can factor into tags, the mother_and_son tag, for instance, is completely dependent on TWYK in a lot of cases. Yall need to stop acting like using TWYK is a cardinal sin that can NEVER be committed, it's simply wrong, and honestly makes you look like you have a very base understanding of tagging in general.

no. you literally cant tell that notable amount of worgens posted here are supposed to be werewolves without relying on external knowledge. and the implication is bad implication and should be undone.

also the family relationship tags are a bit of special case but even they need to have some visual proof.

Commander_Eggplant said:
no. you literally cant tell that notable amount of worgens posted here are supposed to be werewolves without relying on external knowledge. and the implication is bad implication and should be undone.

Ok, but you used the word NOTHING, which is just dead wrong. They are wolf-people, so that's SOMETHING. Whether or not they are werewolves does require a small amount of TWYK in some cases, which I think is completely fine.

Commander_Eggplant said:
also the family relationship tags are a bit of special case but even they need to have some visual proof.

What visual proof is required exactly? Do Dee-Dee and Dexter from Dexter's Lab look at all similar? Yet if they were fucking on this site it would still garner a brother_and_sister tag. You're talking out your ass again. Just look at the damn wiki pages, there is NOTHING speaking on a visual requirement for these tags, or are you just going to say "well there should be!" Yeah, lets just remake the whole site so it's in line with your thinking why don't we.

@Dyrone, you still haven't answered my question.

Fifteen said:
Lore accuracy aside, what's the benefit of having such an alias implication?

Dyrone said:
Ok, but you used the word NOTHING, which is just dead wrong. They are wolf-people, so that's SOMETHING. Whether or not they are werewolves does require a small amount of TWYK in some cases, which I think is completely fine.

post #1317864post #543892

Left one is tagged werewolf, right one isn't. Without using lore, what features of the left one make it more of a werewolf than the right one?

Dyrone said:
Ok, but you used the word NOTHING, which is just dead wrong. They are wolf-people, so that's SOMETHING. Whether or not they are werewolves does require a small amount of TWYK in some cases, which I think is completely fine.

What visual proof is required exactly? Do Dee-Dee and Dexter from Dexter's Lab look at all similar? Yet if they were fucking on this site it would still garner a brother_and_sister tag. You're talking out your ass again. Just look at the damn wiki pages, there is NOTHING speaking on a visual requirement for these tags, or are you just going to say "well there should be!" Yeah, lets just remake the whole site so it's in line with your thinking why don't we.

character being anthro wolf is not enough proof of character being werewolf. or should we tag every goddamn anthro wolf on this site as werewolf?

also i meant the requirment of some visual proof as in you cant tag lizard and cat as mother and daughter just because artist said that they are biologically mother and daughter.

BlueDingo said:
Left one is tagged werewolf, right one isn't. Without using lore, what features of the left one make it more of a werewolf than the right one?

I never said we shouldn't use lore. The left one is clearly a worgen because of the style of the ears.

Fifteen said:
you still haven't answered my question.

The benefit is that it's something people expect, and it makes things easier for tagging. We don't have to evaluate and argue over every single worgen image this way, which is good because the standard we are measuring these things against are pretty arbitrary considering a werewolf is a mythical creature.

Commander_Eggplant said:
character being anthro wolf is not enough proof of character being werewolf. or should we tag every goddamn anthro wolf on this site as werewolf?

Yeah, cause I totally said that. You are a master straw-manner sir. You are putting the straw-man maker's kids through college. For real.

Commander_Eggplant said:
also i meant the requirment of some visual proof as in you cant tag lizard and cat as mother and daughter just because artist said that they are biologically mother and daughter.

true, but that's an awfully low bar, a much lower bar than assuming a certain species of wolf-people are always werewolves.

Dyrone said:
the standard we are measuring these things against are pretty arbitrary considering a werewolf is a mythical creature.

Nagas and lamias are also mythical creatures, neither of which completely match with the myth they originated from, yet we still use the two tags in very specific ways because snake-like beings need to have a certain tag variety so that people can easily find what they expect, and I believe the same goes with wolf and werewolf.

Dyrone said:
The benefit is that it's something people expect, and it makes things easier for tagging. We don't have to evaluate and argue over every single worgen image this way

The arguing part can be fixed if everyone can agree on the distinctive features between a wolf antro and a werewolf, which is the point of this discussion. And don't tell me it's that much of an effort to add the werewolf tag while tagging if you feel like it's worth adding.

Dyrone said:
I never said we shouldn't use lore. The left one is clearly a worgen because of the style of the ears.

Glad to hear it, but I don't remember werewolf myths to mention anything specific about the ears.

Dyrone said:
Yeah, cause I totally said that. You are a master straw-manner sir. You are putting the straw-man maker's kids through college. For real.

Well, if we can't figure out a way to give the werewolf tag any sorf ot meaning, it's probably just going to get aliased into wolf and that'll be that. Why have a second tag for something that can only be identified from lore and already has subspecies tags like worgen for those cases? I'm not strawmanning, there'd just be no point.

Dyrone said:
true, but that's an awfully low bar, a much lower bar than assuming a certain species of wolf-people are always werewolves.

The pokémon rule already says that's not a good justification.

Dyrone said:
I never said we shouldn't use lore.

I know, but the rest of us and the site rules do say that.

Dyrone said:
The left one is clearly a worgen because of the style of the ears.

You didn't answer the question. The question was, what makes it more of a werewolf?

Fifteen said:
Glad to hear it, but I don't remember werewolf myths to mention anything specific about the ears.

I'm saying it looks like a worgen so it's a werewolf.

Fifteen said:
Well, if we can't figure out a way to give the werewolf tag any sorf ot meaning, it's probably just going to get aliased into wolf and that'll be that.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *catches breath* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. No.

I'm not strawmanning

Never accused you of strawmanning, I was talking to Eggplant. Why can't anyone read?

Honestly I'm done getting dogpiled on here. I'm right, you all are wrong, deal with it. I keep restating myself over and over cause you guys just ask the same dumb questions over and over, just rephrased. This is why most people don't even want to discuss a topic like this, because a bunch of pedants like you are just going to work yourselves into such a "logical" pretzel that you say things like the werewolf tag shouldn't even exist LOL. Wow.

Fifteen said:
Well, if we can't figure out a way to give the werewolf tag any sort of meaning, it's probably just going to get aliased into wolf and that'll be that. Why have a second tag for something that can only be identified from lore and already has subspecies tags like worgen for those cases?

I'm almost tempted to go with this just to kill the argument and ensure they all have the wolf tag on them, and make the were tag almost empty in the process since most were images are of werewolves and other were creatures usually don't get the appropriate were tag.

List of were* tags

BlueDingo said:
I'm almost tempted to go with this just to kill the argument and ensure they all have the wolf tag on them, and make the were tag almost empty in the process since most were images are of werewolves and other were creatures usually don't get the appropriate were tag.

So basically if you can't make a tag fit perfectly into your logical construct of tagging, the tag should just be eliminated completely. That is not a good solution AT ALL. I should honestly just never talk on these forums. I try to make you guys see the light, but you always err towards the stupidest solutions possible, I think just to spite me more than anything.

Dyrone said:
That is not a good solution AT ALL.

Hence the "almost tempted" part. I would rather make it useful than eliminate it but if we can't make it useful, elimination is the next option.

Also, attacking and mocking any point of view that doesn't line up with yours is not "making you guys see the light".

Dyrone said:
I never said we shouldn't use lore. The left one is clearly a worgen because of the style of the ears.

Then you're in the wrong, because we should never use lore. That's the rule of Tag What You See.

If lore is the only way to tell if something is a werewolf or not, then there's no point in tagging it. Essentially the only way to tell is if there's a transformation actively happening in that image.

BlueDingo said:
post #1317864post #543892

Left one is tagged werewolf, right one isn't. Without using lore, what features of the left one make it more of a werewolf than the right one?

Alright, so going back to figuring out a tagging policy, if we used "Can it vote?" (as in whether or not it looks human-like enough in behavior and expression to be allowed to vote in-universe without it attempting to maul people) as a rule of thumb for non-tf images, both of these then wouldn't be called werewolf. However, that would also make images like these fall outside of the tag definition, which some people may disagree with.

post #862390 post #1313120 post #794259

Should something be done to cover these as well? Do you have other examples of images that wouldn't be covered by such a rule of thumb that should be examined?

Furrin_Gok said:
Then you're in the wrong, because we should never use lore. That's the rule of Tag What You See.

Well apparently you're in the wrong, because the implication is already set up that way.

Furrin_Gok said:
Essentially the only way to tell is if there's a transformation actively happening in that image.

True, but that's not practical AT ALL. That's the problem with you, you're not practical, the things you suggest are not practical, it's all just mental exercises that go nowhere and mean nothing.

That's like saying "well the only way to tell if the alien tag is justified is if we can see the character coming from an alien planet." Guess that'll be your next crusade...remove the alien tag because we cannot be PERFECTLY sure these creatures are aliens!

I mean take Stitch for example...he looks like a Pokemon. He's a random furry animal that could easily be found in a lost jungle or engineered in a lab here on earth. There's is hardly anything in his design that screams THIS IS AN ALIEN FOR SURE. But we tag him as alien partly because we are relying on outside knowledge...people know he's an alien, and he looks alien enough that it's not offensive to the 12 people who've never watched the show. This is the reality of tagging, sometimes TWYK is used a tinnny bit, get used to it. Honestly if you guys are offended by "cute" werewovles, you could just go around and tag every "scary" werewolf image with [[monster, because they LOOK monstrous. However, knowing this site, that probably violates some random condition of the monster tag which is why I haven't bothered suggesting it 'til now.

Dyrone said:
That's like saying "well the only way to tell if the alien tag is justified is if we can see the character coming from an alien planet." Guess that'll be your next crusade...remove the alien tag because we cannot be PERFECTLY sure these creatures are aliens!

Considering the word alien means "(something) from another place" and has nothing to do with what that something looks like, yes, external information is the only way to know for sure.

Dyrone said:
Honestly if you guys are offended by "cute" werewovles, you could just go around and tag every "scary" werewolf image with monster

And you accuse us of strawmanning. Offense has nothing to do with this.

BlueDingo said:
Considering the word alien means "(something) from another place" and has nothing to do with what that something looks like, yes, external information is the only way to know for sure.

Ok, so you're basically saying the alien tag is completely TWYK, then why is this in the wiki? "Keep in mind that this tag should only be added if the creature looks like an alien by twys." Clearly something must LOOK alien as well. So it's a combination of TWYS and TWYK, so every time you guys say "you can't use TWYK EVER" you were lying through your teeth. So BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION we've established TWYK can be, and really has to be, used at times.

So I'm going need you to take that crutch you've been using, kiss it, hug it, then throw it in the dumpster and come up with a better argument.

Species tagging does have a heavy twtk element to it, in both needing to know the difference between two species (real or not) and also knowing the artist's intent. I've said it before, but if it wasn't, most furry art would end up tagged 'canine', but what the artist and lore says overrules what it looks like. It also means that in images where the artist has drawn a pokemon/digimon exactly like a real animal with a pallet swap, it's still wrong to tag it as that animal despite that technically being correct under twys.

Alien is a special exemption. It has nothing to do with werewolves.

Worgen was implicated five years ago. We've since refined our tagging system some, and we've gotten rid of a lot of implications and aliases from that time. It may be time to get rid of this implication, too.

Dyrone said:
Well apparently you're in the wrong, because the implication is already set up that way.

True, but that's not practical AT ALL. That's the problem with you, you're not practical, the things you suggest are not practical, it's all just mental exercises that go nowhere and mean nothing.

Why do you have to be so aggressive about a tag implication? Why do you have to be so irrationally dismissive about TWYS even though it does a fine job at enforcing tags that mean exactly what people browsing for stuff expect them to? You're arguing as if the pokémon policy change hadn't hapenned, as if gender tagging wasn't a big deal anymore and we could just tag characters with whatever gender the artist says they are.

Your reasoning doesn't work here. No matter how abrasive you're trying to be, TWYS is here to stay.

Now could we please get back to the subject at hand? We're 50 posts in and this hasn't gone anywhere yet.

Dyrone said:
The benefit is that it's something people expect, and it makes things easier for tagging. We don't have to evaluate and argue over every single worgen image this way, which is good because the standard we are measuring these things against are pretty arbitrary considering a werewolf is a mythical creature.

Not everybody expects that though, you expect it. Making a tag inaccurate because its easier isn’t a good argument.

BlueDingo said:
I'm almost tempted to go with this just to kill the argument and ensure they all have the wolf tag on them, and make the were tag almost empty in the process since most were images are of werewolves and other were creatures usually don't get the appropriate were tag.

List of were* tags

I’m leaning towards this solution. While it would be nice to have the were tag for werewolves it actually deciding on what one is doesn’t seem to be going well. Maybe just have wolf as the species and then add a semi-anthro tag? I don’t know. Personally I’d like to see the tag stay and we come up with an actual definition of a werewolf.

SharkFetish said:
I’m leaning towards this solution. While it would be nice to have the were tag for werewolves it actually deciding on what one is doesn’t seem to be going well. Maybe just have wolf as the species and then add a semi-anthro tag? I don’t know. Personally I’d like to see the tag stay and we come up with an actual definition of a werewolf.

Your solution would exclude pokemon whom are made to look like werewolves. Midnight_lycanroc werewolf is one quick example (was, turns out someone nuked that. There used to be a bunch), and pokemon cannot be tagged with specific species like wolf... but they can be tagged werewolf, as it’s an equally fictional species.

Siral_Exan said:
Your solution would exclude pokemon whom are made to look like werewolves. Midnight_lycanroc werewolf is one quick example, and pokemon cannot be tagged with specific species like wolf... but they can be tagged werewolf, as it’s an equally fictional species.

We fixed this last week, they now only have the were tag instead of werewolf tag.

NotMeNotYou said:
We fixed this last week, they now only have the were tag instead of werewolf tag.

I noticed, I had to edit my bloody search because I kept rereading your message from months ago. Well, that solved what I was partially worried sbout.

Fifteen said:
Why do you have to be so aggressive about a tag implication?

Because people are intentionally misunderstanding me as a means to further their arguements...case in point:

Fifteen said:
Your reasoning doesn't work here. No matter how abrasive you're trying to be, TWYS is here to stay.

Oh look at this, more STRAW-MANNING. Do you guys even know what straw-manning is? Here you go, maybe you can better understand what it is you're doing all the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

By saying "No matter how abrasive you're trying to be, TWYS is here to stay" you're arguing as if I'm saying TWYS should be trashed completely. I never said that...all I'm saying that occasionally you can use TWYK. Strawmanning! Learn about it, and then please stop doing it cause it's getting very VERY old.

Fifteen said:
Now could we please get back to the subject at hand? We're 50 posts in and this hasn't gone anywhere yet.

The reason no one is talking about it is cause there's nothing to talk about. The system works fine as it is. I already proposed MY fix, which would be to tag more savage-looking werewolves as monster.

If you want to discuss it so bad though all I can say is your idea about "can it vote"?, which is trying to gauge the werewolf's intelligence FROM A PICTURE as a sign of whether or not it's a werewolf, is stupid. First off, just because it's doing something an animalistic, like attacking or howling, doesn't mean it's not smart. Secondly, that has nothing to do with being a werewolf. There are werewolves who can think just fine and act just like people in popular media, usually when they "learn to control" their power.

Dyrone said:
Oh look at this, more STRAW-MANNING. Do you guys even know what straw-manning is? Here you go, maybe you can better understand what it is you're doing all the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

By saying "No matter how abrasive you're trying to be, TWYS is here to stay" you're arguing as if I'm saying TWYS should be trashed completely. I never said that...all I'm saying that occasionally you can use TWYK. Strawmanning! Learn about it, and then please stop doing it cause it's getting very VERY old.

Putting every other word in bold and/or all-caps doesn't make you more right, it just makes having a discussion on this more annoying that it needs to be. Please stop that.

Also, if you're going to complain about my choice of words, how about this instead : Every past discussion I've seen about were-* tags and the related implications and aliases would end up being bogged down by nobody really agreeing on the definitions and tagging implications of werewolf when everyone around is some sort of animal standing on 2 legs, which is why we have tags like lycan alias to were directly for no good reason and I'd personally be very interested in using the werewolf tag as something other than a TWYK extension of the wolf tag.

Dyrone said:
The reason no one is talking about it is cause there's nothing to talk about. The system works fine as it is. I already proposed MY fix, which would be to tag more savage-looking werewolves as monster.

Thank you, I'll keep that in mind.

Dyrone said:
If you want to discuss it so bad though all I can say is your idea about "can it vote"?, which is trying to gauge the werewolf's intelligence FROM A PICTURE as a sign of whether or not it's a werewolf, is stupid. First off, just because it's doing something an animalistic, like attacking or howling, doesn't mean it's not smart.

(If I didn't want to discuss it, I wouldn't have made a thread with that title.)

You said it yourself, it's "trying to gauge [something] FROM A PICTURE(sic) [...]". The "can it vote" guideline isn't meant to evaluate intelligence (anyone can vote, after all, barring a very specific set of conditions that would make you ineligible), it's meant to evaluate whether that werewolf character is meant to stand-in as a person (i.e : a normal guy with a normal life that's also a wolf) or as a beast. If the definition of werewolf was altered so that it only covers obviously savage werewolves (which is what I'm arguing in favor of, in addition to transformations), I think that would be a great rule of thumb. Feel free to suggest a different one, though.

Dyrone said:
Secondly, that has nothing to do with being a werewolf. There are werewolves who can think just fine and act just like people in popular media, usually when they "learn to control" their power.

But that's lore-specific things that might vary from source to source. Big wolf on campus portrays the werewolf character as still exactly the same guy with the exact same manners and not any more or less smarter or instinct-driven than before, just with extra facial hair and not even enough makeup to qualify as wolf_humanoid. Per the show's lore, that's what a werewolf is and is supposed to look like, and if such an image ended up here, that's how it would need to get tagged.

I don't know about you, but were that to happen, I definitely wouldn't want that tagged as werewolf.

EDIT : Come to think of it, that's probably why werewolf doesn't alias to wolf. Wolf humanoids don't qualify as actual wolves when tagging.

Okay at risk of opening up this kettle of fish again...

The original topic: How to distinguish 'werewolf' from other wolf related tags. What makes a werewolf a werewolf.

I would propose that empty/blank/glowing eyes are often werewolfish and can add to the 'feral appearance'. Such as:

post #1152603 post #981555 post #1109840 post #1107122

Obviously, this may not always be present (just as 'ripped clothing is not always present), nor is glowing eyes a dead giveaway of a werewolf, but it is something to consider.

I also think that the wiki could benefit from a "famous werewolves" section. There are several characters who are werewolves that do not imply werewolves, and that way if someone is interested in werewolves-as-a-character, you have some helpful options. (examples, Winnie Werewolf, Jon Talbain from Darkstalkers...)

Anyway, on to that kettle of fish...

I feel like one of the important aspects is being neglected here... When people search for a tag, it's because they want things that look like that. When someone searches 'feline' it's because they want a cat, not Jane-the-cat-as-a-pony. When someone searches 'wolf'.. they want something based heavily on the lupine-design: canine, dog-muzzle-shape (long, broad, with a large nose), pointy ears, short-to-mid-lenght-ish-fur, paws-with-claws, cocks-with-knots, moderately poofy tails. Maybe not all of them at the same time (characters without tails, characters with shorter muzzles, characters with long fluffy fur...) but there's a general canine-y-ness that is expected when searching for a wolf.

When people want 'werewolf,' they're seeking something beyond the above mentioned wolf-y-ness, and are likely seeking something more akin to what you see in the traditional werewolf movie or TV show. I, personally, believe that this is the wolf-ish aesthetic for one... but there's also a lot of other aspects: unwanted or uncontrolled change. A loss of emotional control--often anger. A degree of ferocity and feralness. Typically, bared teeth and claws. Werewolves are classically depicted with... some sort of element of horror. Not necessarily that they are ugly or horrific, but that there's a grittiness I can't really put a word to. Y'know, the quality that post #1363854 doesn't have.

So, I think that determining what makes a werewolf a werewolf and not a wolf-anthro should be based around what someone searching for 'werewolf' would want to find.

(I've got a character that is a were-critter. She can change on command to either a 4-legged form, or a 2-legged "werewolf" form, but is generally pretty chill while she's transformed. Maybe a little more temperamental, but she's not going to snap and rip off someone's face for bumping into her or stepping on her toes. If pictures of her existed, she should not be tagged werewolf. Unless! she is actually furious for some reason, while in her bipedal werewolf form.)

Clothing and posture are also pretty big indicators. For example, these all look like pretty angry wolves, but they don't CLEARLY say "I am a werewolf".. they say "I am a wolf and I am ANGRY."
post #1243315 post #1152603 post #926192 post #786176

Whereas, these depicts a bestial rage rather than a humanoid anger:
post #632631 post #632824 post #1143685

So! With all this said.. I do not agree that worgen should imply werewolf. If I want worgen art, I will search for worgen. Just like, I do not believe that winnie_werewolf or Jon_Talbain or bernard_(ok_k.o.!_lbh) should automatically imply werewolf. (they don't!) ...because *being* a werewolf doesn't meant that they always look like a werewolf.

Seriously: post #1352151

Including worgen in the werewolf tag dilutes the 'purity' of the search. Of course, one COULD search for werewolf -worgen but... should that strictly be nessisary? Especially since, if worgen implies werewolf, so should Jon_talbain and winnie_werewolf.... so, really, you'd need to search for werewolf -worgen -jon_talbain -winnie_werewolf -bernard_(ok_k.o.!_lbh ... etc etc etc

Now, worgen certainly CAN be tagged with werewolf, of course. But it shouldn't be the 'default'.

post #631705 post #743107 post #187900

...but most worgen angry images are just... wolf anthros displaying human anger, rather than werewolves werewolfing.

So, in conclusion:

I don't think worgen should imply werewolf.
I don't think any specific races or characters should imply werewolf.
I also think that 'werewolf' should be gone through, as, by *MY* criterea, many of the werewolf pictures on the site don't really look like werewolves:

post #1377350 post #1376051 post #1375769 post #1373366 post #1368587

And yes, I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is and go through 'em all.

SnowWolf said:
I would propose that empty/blank/glowing eyes are often werewolfish and can add to the 'feral appearance'. [...]

Obviously, this may not always be present (just as 'ripped clothing is not always present), nor is glowing eyes a dead giveaway of a werewolf, but it is something to consider.

I'm so-so on that one, but I agree it can help when dealing with ambiguous cases.

SnowWolf said:
I also think that the wiki could benefit from a "famous werewolves" section. There are several characters who are werewolves that do not imply werewolves, and that way if someone is interested in werewolves-as-a-character, you have some helpful options. (examples, Winnie Werewolf, Jon Talbain from Darkstalkers...)

That's actually not a bad idea. Highlighting characters and universe-specific races that are said to be werewolves, but may not count as such when tagging.

SnowWolf said:
I don't think worgen should imply werewolf.
I don't think any specific races or characters should imply werewolf.
I also think that 'werewolf' should be gone through, as, by *MY* criterea, many of the werewolf pictures on the site don't really look like werewolves

Wow! I regret not checking on that thread earlier, I thought it'd sunk into the depths of the forums, never to be found again. You went through all the things that annoy me about the current state of the werewolf tag and I couldn't possibly agree more : Too few of the instances of werewolf lack the savage, "not a person anymore" characteristic that makes werewolves so interesting in the first place, including worgen pictures, and many of these are tagged as such simply because of old aliases or loose tagging rules in that regard.

So, then :

• Should transformation be a valid reason to tag werewolf? (I'm becoming increasingly unsure whether or not this would fit in such a specialized tag)
• What are, in order of importance, the factors that could be used to decide whether or not to apply that tag?
• What's a good rule of thumb to use as a TL;DR?

To which my answers would be :

• I dunno, I'm asking the question because I'm really starting to doubt myself, here. One one hand, this is one of the most classic characteristics of werewolves, while on the other hand, if werewolf implies certain specific characteristics, a character could transform into a "werewolf" during an image sequence, and the final, post transformation image not match the requirements for werewolf.
• Transformation(?) > Savage/"Not a person" > Other dehumanizing factors (Glowing eyes & such)
• "Is this wolf-creature meant to be a person or a beast?" (A less tongue-in-cheek version of my initial "Can it vote?")

On a side note: This is not a werewolf: post #1401343 *huff*

Fifteen said:
I'm so-so on that one, but I agree it can help when dealing with ambiguous cases.

It wasn't so much that an anthro wolf with glowing/empty eyes is a werewolf, just that it seems common. :)

That's actually not a bad idea. Highlighting characters and universe-specific races that are said to be werewolves, but may not count as such when tagging.

:)

Wow! I regret not checking on that thread earlier, I thought it'd sunk into the depths of the forums, never to be found again. You went through all the things that annoy me about the current state of the werewolf tag and I couldn't possibly agree more : Too few of the instances of werewolf lack the savage, "not a person anymore" characteristic that makes werewolves so interesting in the first place, including worgen pictures, and many of these are tagged as such simply because of old aliases or loose tagging rules in that regard.

Yay :D

So, then :

• Should transformation be a valid reason to tag werewolf? (I'm becoming increasingly unsure whether or not this would fit in such a specialized tag)

I think so. I mean, if it seems like it could be werewolfy.

These seem werewolfy:
post #1401310 post #1382746 post #1385607 post #1376348

these don't:
post #1379169 post #1337210 post #1364300 post #1297034

These... I"m not sure on:
post #1299250 post #1340355 post #1339744

They're obviously changing, sometiems with the full moon, but...

Transformiming into a wolf doens't nessicarily indicate a werewolf?

I'm really unsure about how i feel about that, actually. Trying to figure out how I feel about it.

• What are, in order of importance, the factors that could be used to decide whether or not to apply that tag?
• What's a good rule of thumb to use as a TL;DR?

To which my answers would be :

• I dunno, I'm asking the question because I'm really starting to doubt myself, here. One one hand, this is one of the most classic characteristics of werewolves, while on the other hand, if werewolf implies certain specific characteristics, a character could transform into a "werewolf" during an image sequence, and the final, post transformation image not match the requirements for werewolf.
• Transformation(?) > Savage/"Not a person" > Other dehumanizing factors (Glowing eyes & such)
• "Is this wolf-creature meant to be a person or a beast?" (A less tongue-in-cheek version of my initial "Can it vote?")

I guess...

• not sure.

Not sure. Wolf-like features, and... if transforming, soem degree of surprise , horror or dread... if transformed, a bestial 'not a person' quality, coupled with a savage rage. I'm super tired so this isn't the clearest answer. :(

... I"m not sure most posts with erotic content would count either honestly.

On the other hand.. the ones i'm not sure about are pretty clearly INTENDED to play off of werewolf fetishism.... and should be tagged.. somehow? but I dunno.

I"ll give this some more thought over the next few dyas, but I gotta head off now. <3

So I've been giving it some thought over the past few days, and I'm really starting to think it might not be a bad idea to keep transformations outside of the definition for "werewolf" to avoid having a single tag covering 2 different things (the "werewolf form", on which we're starting to converge on; and the transformation part, which might not lead to something that would match the aforementionned "werewolf form") at once, but then I can't help myself thinking that this might make the definition really counter-intuitive to a lot of people.

I'm thinking maybe restrict the definition that werewolf transformations should maybe carry the implication that the character is clearly being turned into something "not human" (or at the very least "not themselves"), to keep the distinction clear. Dunno how easy it would be to determine when tagging images, though.

To reuse your examples, @SnowWolf, I would then tag them like this: