Taurs cannot be humanoids. This makes as much sense as implying centaur to feral.

-1 tag exists because people there are also anthromorphic upper half taurs.

Versperus said:
-1 tag exists because people there are also anthromorphic upper half taurs.

What? Did you read my post at all?

kahen_kilon_vittu said:
What? Did you read my post at all?

sometimes I miss things when I read. Still, implication makes sense to me.

Versperus said:
sometimes I miss things when I read. Still, implication makes sense to me.

It really does not make sense in any way. Literally all current form tagging guidelines and wikis are really strict about the fact that something cannot be taur and humanoid at the same time because the base body form tags are mutually exclusive. Just like taur can never be tagged as feral, it cannot be tagged as humanoid either. In fact tagging taurs as humanoids breaks rules and people have got warnings and records for this. It's really weird to have implication that is against site's own rules about body form tagging.

This is an odd one. The humanoid_taur species tag itself is a bit of an oxymoron. The upper-half of this species is purely human, so it'd make sense to implicate humanoid for blacklist/search-exclusion purposes. Conversely, this also causes problems, since there'd be no way to exclude or blacklist regular humanoids from a search for humanoid_tuars.

I think the second scenario presents a bigger problem, since the first scenario can be solved by simply adding humanoid_centaur to your blacklist, while the second scenario has no solution whatsoever. I'm in favor of removing this implication.

started out at a semi-neutral -1 but after some thought I think I'm more +1 for this now
imo taurs should probably go by a small amount of hybrid logic, tag the specific species top and taur bottom. so in that sense it would be logical to tag humanoid since it's the top half of the taur. the rub is that in a way the tags humanoid and human are kind of both a body type tag and a species tag.

...except the tags aren't really used that way on the site, they're just used for body type. yeah irl human is a species but on the site its just a body type. centaur doesn't and shouldn't imply human. this probably shouldn't imply humanoid, it should imply taur as a body type then by hybrid logic be manually tagged as the top and bottom species, ex elf, equid. doing this with centaurs would be centaur I-> equid(this already happens) since thats always the centaur taur bottom and then a human subtype(asian_human, latin _human, etc.) on top.

abscondler said: there'd be no way to exclude or blacklist regular humanoids from a search for humanoid_tuars.

not sure exactly what you mean so:
humanoid_taur -> returns tagged posts, no non taur humanoids
humanoid -taur -> returns only humanoids that aren't taurs(the -taur is only needed because of this implication)

there's no real need for humanoid_taur to imply humanoid afaict, and really it probably shouldn't

sooo +1

sneezer22 said:
not sure exactly what you mean so:
humanoid_taur -> returns tagged posts, no non taur humanoids
humanoid -taur -> returns only humanoids that aren't taurs(the -taur is only needed because of this implication)

I was referring to the opposite scenario, where humanoid_taur -humanoid will currently net you 0 results, because of how these tags conflict. This means that if you want to search for posts that contain humanoid taurs but no actual humanoids, there is currently no way to do that.

Honestly I agree. While I feel the humanoid taur tag is a pretty solid, criminally undertagged tag, having it imply humanoid just leads to too many problems in regards to searching and filtering. I'm gonna remove the implication for now, though the base tag will stay.