The bulk update request #1881 is active.

remove implication humanoidized (7294) -> alternate_species (36508)

Reason: If a non-humanoid, non-furry creature (say, a magnemite) is depicted as a humanoid, the humanoidized tag ought to be added. The humanoidized tag implies the alternate_species tag. This has resulted in quite a few posts getting the alternate_species tag despite no species being altered.

post #996391 post #850514 post #888567

Not every instance of the tag is going to be for moemon-esque forms. It's the same thing as a feral fox getting anthrofied into an anthro fox; it's still the same species, just a different form (and anthrofied doesn't imply alternate_species, incidentally).

EDIT: The bulk update request #1881 (forum #325121) has been approved by @slyroon.

I'm all for this. This was mentioned in a thread a few months back but didn't go anywhere. I'll quote what I said last time:

jockjamdoorslam said:
I guess it comes down to the blurry grey area fictional species have between characters and traditional species - for example, they don't get implicated to their "parent" species (e.g. lucario to canid); you can draw a character cosplaying as a Pokemon species and it'll get tagged with the Pokemon, but a character wearing a fox_costume wouldn't get tagged as a fox.

I would agree with removing the alternate_species tag from humanoidized though, because unlike the humanized tag, there are "degrees" of humanoidization - at which point are each of these considered an alternatve species?
post #30118

isn't alternate_form a tag? should be implicated to that instead. actually I think anthrofied would make sense to be implicated to that as well.

versperus said:
isn't alternate_form a tag? should be implicated to that instead. actually I think anthrofied would make sense to be implicated to that as well.

The wiki seems really really broad, basically whenever someone/something's drawn in an art style that's different from the source media's art. Its use of "form" is different than other wikis or tags.

strikerman said:
The wiki seems really really broad, basically whenever someone/something's drawn in an art style that's different from the source media's art. Its use of "form" is different than other wikis or tags.

sounds perfect considering

versperus said:
sounds perfect considering

I guess? But I feel like 90% of posts based on copyrighted stuff could fall under the explanation given in the wiki.

The bulk update request #1881 (forum #325121) has been approved by @slyroon.