Implicating weeping_angel → doctor_who
Link to implication

Reason:

It is a specie originated from the Doctor Who series.

Related implications:

• weeping_angel → statue¹
• weeping_angel → animate_inanimate

¹ Weeping angels are living statues.

EDIT: The tag implication weeping_angel -> doctor_who (forum #222167) has been approved by @furrypickle.

O16 said:
Implicating weeping_angel → doctor_who
Link to implication

Reason:

Is a specie originated from the Doctor Who series.

Related implications:

• weeping_angel → statue¹
• weeping_angel → animate_inanimate¹

¹ Weeping angels are living statues.

-1 to animate_inanimate, if they are not shown performing any action they would not get such a tag. There is such a thing as a statue being a statue, and nothing more. Such tagging would be inanimate_object, and is the parralel to the aforementioned.

Siral_Exan said:
-1 to animate_inanimate, if they are not shown performing any action they would not get such a tag. There is such a thing as a statue being a statue, and nothing more. Such tagging would be inanimate_object, and is the parralel to the aforementioned.

If I understood well, you stated that "animate_inanimate" shouldin't be used for "living objects", but for inanimate things showing the capacity of moving by their self.
Following this reasoning, SpongeBob should be tagged as "animate_inanimate", since regular sea sponges "are not shown performing any action" (except in cellular level or during the larval stage).

O16 said:
If I understood well, you stated that "animate_inanimate" shouldin't be used for "living objects", but for inanimate things showing the capacity of moving by their self.
Following this reasoning, SpongeBob should be tagged as "animate_inanimate", since regular sea sponges "are not shown performing any action" (except in cellular level or during the larval stage).

But spongebob has eyes, a tongue, sometimes a visible brain, blood (water, since that removes waste), et cetera. Those are things living beings have. A statue, on the other hand, is made of inorganic material that never lived to begin with. You contradict yourself, even: "their body doesn't live, but they live". The cellular level, their process of using water to breathe and remove waste, they are alive, and are made of things that are alive.

Animate inanimate should not be used for beings that are alive, like flesh and blood animals. They are for objects that possess life, but otherwise would never be alive. Inanimate object is the opposite, it looks like something that lives, but it isn't alive and is made of something that wouldn't be alive. Like stone or metal...

An angel statue doing nothing is inanimate_object; an angel statue interacting (with the environment or with others) as if it was alive would be animate_inanimate; spongebob is made of an organic, living thing, so it wouldn't get either normally.

Siral_Exan said:
Animate inanimate should not be used for beings that are alive, like flesh and blood animals. They are for objects that possess life, but otherwise would never be alive.

The quote above has been modified (highlighted excerpt).

So weeping angels are included, no matter if they are showing some kind of action or not.

Siral_Exan said:
An angel statue doing nothing is inanimate_object; an angel statue interacting (with the environment or with others) as if it was alive would be animate_inanimate;[…]

So, if an object knowed to be alive isn't moving or interacting it isn't a animate inanimate.

e.g. post #388658

O16 said:

The quote above has been modified (highlighted excerpt).

So weeping angels are included, no matter if they are showing some kind of action or not.

Well hello there Tag What You Know. Long time, no see.

O16 said:
So, if an object knowed to be alive isn't moving or interacting it isn't a animate inanimate.

e.g. post #388658

Honestly, Pokemon and Digimon are the odd sets out: without literally any set implications to what they look like, and I emphasis literally, there is no control over what people tag it as. The admins have spoken, respoken, fixed, but people still don't tag or mistag species for them. We desperately need more implications set... it's like an anarchy of laziness up in those posts.

But we are not talking about Pokemon, are we? Your closest example (seriously, "Spongebob"?) would have been gargoyles. They follow the same suit: if they aren't acting alive, they don't get tagged as an animate inanimate. If they are, and the context of that don't vary much, then they get that tag.

-1 for animate_inanimate since, even in the show, you never actually see them moving. the whole thing about weeping angels is they can never move if anything, even other weeping angels, sees or looks at them and when anything does see them, they are inanimate statues.

but that all falls under TWYK here.

so the doctor_who copyright and statue tags are fine but animate_inanimate will never work for this race of the most dangerous killers in the universe.

even with that strange "anything that looks at a weeping angel becomes a weeping angel" thing wouldn't count here. o_O pretty freaky how even merely looking at a video recording of one of these creatures is that lethal. (nice inspiration from The Ring with that ability.)

treos said:
... the whole thing about weeping angels is they can never move if anything, even other weeping angels, sees or looks at them...

Suddenly, this makes a lot more sense.
post #547503

O16 said:
e.g. post #388658

Hard to tell because of the background, but that one looks like it's floating in air.

But yes, a Klefki that's lying motionless on someone's table could be assumed to be just a figurine or an actual keyring.

Because of the nature of the animate_inanimate tag, I don't think we could implicate anything to it.

Genjar said:
Hard to tell because of the background, but that one looks like it's floating in air.

But yes, a Klefki that's lying motionless on someone's table could be assumed to be just a figurine or an actual keyring.

Because of the nature of the animate_inanimate tag, I don't think we could implicate anything to it.

I was tempted to say "maybe mascots, not unlike the Switch Dog", but then realized that you can make a figurine or drawing of it, etc., or costumes.

Siral_Exan said:
Suddenly, this makes a lot more sense.
post #547503

that reminds me of one episode where (with a time loop where the doctor would leave a video for a couple of people and eventually it would lead to them giving him the info that would lead to him leaving the message in the first place. confusing time travel stuff. >.>) he tricked 4 angels into looking at and locking each other into place forever.

probably best to save further time travel related discussion for a different thread.

Siral_Exan said:
[…] Your closest example (seriously, "Spongebob"?) would have been gargoyles. […]

*Sight

I didn't remembered those (and was thinking about aquatic invertebrates).

treos said:
-1 for animate_inanimate since, even in the show, you never actually see them moving. the whole thing about weeping angels is they can never move if anything, even other weeping angels, sees or looks at them and when anything does see them, they are inanimate statues.

Ok, you won.

...

This conversation make me wonder: maybe a new forum thread dedicated specificaly for TWYS × TWYK is needed. Some tags commonly require outside information.

e.g.

post #169257 • inspired by proper art

post #1059998 • parody

post #1108041 • alien

Do you think I should make forum thread focused on this subject?

O16 said:
post #1108041 • alien

Do you think I should make forum thread focused on this subject?

There are already a few threads for TWYK policies, so make sure none of them are already for TWYK in general.
Although I can definitely say species, like "Alien," is not Tag What You Know. While Lombax are rare on the worlds Ratchet visits, he's still treated perfectly normal, even being a citizen of the original world. The closest he comes to being treated as an alien is "Some kind of... cat-like squirrel dude?" Which, let's be honest, in a furry world full of hybrids, you'd get comments like that all the time.

Furrin_Gok said:
There are already a few threads for TWYK policies, so make sure none of them are already for TWYK in general.
Although I can definitely say species, like "Alien," is not Tag What You Know. While Lombax are rare on the worlds Ratchet visits, he's still treated perfectly normal, even being a citizen of the original world. The closest he comes to being treated as an alien is "Some kind of... cat-like squirrel dude?" Which, let's be honest, in a furry world full of hybrids, you'd get comments like that all the time.

I simply wanted to state that some "alien races" never would be tagged as alien without outside information; therefore I searched "alien anthro rating:s" and choosed a relatively well known example.

_{And you didn't answered my question. Wait ... Actually you did. Sorry for that.}

O16 said:
I simply wanted to state that some "alien races" never would be tagged as alien without outside information; therefore I searched "alien anthro rating:s" and choosed a relatively well known example.

Alien is a bit iffy. If they're in a setting in which they would be an alien, then yes, I would say tag them. The human from Planet 51, for example, is the alien. He does not fit in on Planet 51, since the people of that world are green, smooth skinned people with thick floppy flesh for their "Hair" rather than actual thin strands. We, as humans, might be instinctively inclined to say otherwise, that the native species to Planet 51 are the aliens, since they aren't our own species, but that's not the case.

post #282461
This image, by my logic, is not alien. The whole setting of the movie takes place on their planet.

Furrin_Gok said:
Alien is a bit iffy. If they're in a setting in which they would be an alien, then yes, I would say tag them. The human from Planet 51, for example, is the alien. He does not fit in on Planet 51, since the people of that world are green, smooth skinned people with thick floppy flesh for their "Hair" rather than actual thin strands. We, as humans, might be instinctively inclined to say otherwise, that the native species to Planet 51 are the aliens, since they aren't our own species, but that's not the case.

Maybe we should define what is or not an "alien" using the Earth as reference. In any fictional universe in which the Earth do not exists, the world in focus would be used as a reference; if in this particular universe no world recive more focus tan the others, the only creatures not classified as an "alien" would be real creatures, if they are present (e.g. peacock, starfish, coral, centipede etc).

That's the big problem with determining what is alien and what isn't: Whose perspective are you using and what range? Technically speaking, something from a different country can be classified as an alien as the word alien can mean "someone/something from a foreign place" making this little fella an alien to most of us since it comes from Mexico.

For tagging purposes, we have to stick with extraterrestrial aliens (ie. things from a foreign planet) as they are a lot easier to identify and it would be true no matter what part of the planet any of us are on. The question is, which planet do we use for perspective?

The tag implication weeping_angel -> doctor_who (forum #222167) has been approved by @furrypickle.