We have "canid/felid/avian_humanoid" tags. But the "anthro_canid/felid/avian" tags are aliased to the species. Why is that?
Topic: "canid/felid/avian_humanoid" but not "canid/felid/avian_anthro"
Posted under Tag/Wiki Projects and Questions
Could be something to go along with this
dubsthefox said:
The humanoid tags also do refer to body forms
No they don't. The correct tag to refer to a humanoid body form is anthro. humanoid specifically refers to characters who are humans except for some added characteristics, like cat ears.
The humanoid tags are extremely widely misused to refer to anthros by people who don't know the difference, but that doesn't make your definition correct.
strikerman said:
Are these humanoids or something else?
All three of them are anthrofied Pokémon, not humanoid. They have been incorrectly tagged humanoidized, which is supposed to refer to things like this:
In fact we have a tag pokémon_humanoid, which means something quite different:
wat8548 said:
All three of them are anthrofied Pokémon, not humanoid. They have been incorrectly tagged humanoidized, which is supposed to refer to things like this:In fact we have a tag pokémon_humanoid, which means something quite different:
So you're saying these are anthros? Even though they don't have any animal traits.
wat8548 said:
All three of them are anthrofied Pokémon, not humanoid. They have been incorrectly tagged humanoidized, which is supposed to refer to things like this:In fact we have a tag pokémon_humanoid, which means something quite different:
You should probably read the wikis you linked: anthro explicitly refers to animals, from real species like wolves to fake ones like dragons. Pokémon species depend on how they are drawn, with an anthro vulpix being possible... but a gardevoir being more humanoid instead, since they have no animal traits. humanoidized Pokémon exist, and they either fit the "more humanoid than pokémon", or they feature non-animal Pokémon looking more "anthro", which wouldn't get tagged anthro because they aren't considered animal-esque enough. That roggenrola would be considered Humanoidized, due to the aforementioned lack of animal traits. Now, it is possible to make one get tagged anthro, but to do so they would need animal traits added to them; making them bipedal and more human-like is insufficient on it's own.
There's plenty of inconsistencies due to taggers not knowing that we altered the term "anthro" to a site's definition, rather than the more common one(s). Said roggenrola's default form would also not get tagged feral, it would get tagged waddling_head instead.
siral_exan said:
You should probably read the wikis you linked: (snip)
What I'm reading is, either I'm right or the tag is wrong. The way you describe it, humanoid is essentially a wastebasket tag for anything anthro that doesn't very specifically resemble a wolf, rather than things which do very specifically resemble humans.
Main difference:
anthro: furry, site-relevant
humanoid: non-furry, approved but barely relevant
Main purpose of the split: blacklisting/search convenience.
animal_humanoid is an odd grey area, but it's in humanoid because many insist that catgirls etc aren't furry. (Yet they do not count as not_furry. Like I said, an odd grey area.)
Updated
genjar said:
Main purpose of the split: blacklisting/search convenience.
It would be even more convenient if "(genus/family/order/class) humanoid" didn't imply "(genus/family/order/class)". I have said this several times before and I reiterate that this choice was a mistake.
In the context of e621, humanoids are unique in comparison to anthros/ferals/others and they should be treated differently in tagging.
Additionally, I believe that post #996391, post #850514 and post #888567 would be better classified as "anthrofied".
gattonero2001 said:
It would be even more convenient if "(genus/family/order/class) humanoid" didn't imply "(genus/family/order/class)". I have said this several times before and I reiterate that this choice was a mistake.
And I would say it's not. If I want to search for or blacklist elephants, it shouldn't miss posts just because it was an elephant humanoid. If I search for a type of animal, I want all posts with that animal, be it feral, anthro, taur, or humanoid. Same if I blacklist or exclude a type of animal, I don't want some getting through because there's a separate tag for that form. And with as confused as people seem to get over humanoid vs anthro tags here, having "(genus/family/order/class) humanoid" not imply "(genus/family/order/class)" would be really messy.
watsit said:
If I want to search for or blacklist elephants, it shouldn't miss posts just because it was an elephant humanoid.
Isn't it wonderful that we have simple and intuitive tilde search syntax that acts as an OR operator and that blacklists can have more than one line?
gattonero2001 said:
Isn't it wonderful that we have simple and intuitive tilde search syntax that acts as an OR operator and that blacklists can have more than one line?
It's not very intuitive. Most people don't know tilde search is a thing until they're told about it, and while it's simple, it's too simple. Can't have more than one OR group, and it's more search terms to keep track of. Good luck searching for feline transformations, as transformations also have separate tags. Depending on the state of the transformation and how the tagger tagged, it may or may not be tagged humanoid. So you need ~transformation ~implied_transformation ~after_transformation AND ~feline ~feline_humanoid. There's many other ideas that can span multiple tags (cum_on_clothing/cum_through_clothing/precum_through_clothing/etc, or erection_under_clothing/tenting, rape/imminent_rape/after_rape, vore/imminent_vore/after_vore), which would make it impossible to add a species to search for that includes humanoid and non-humanoid forms.
Having to add multiple lines to a blacklist for one species is also not intuitive. If I blacklist dog, I expect all dogs to be blacklisted, it's unintuitive for some to still come through because it's a particular form of dog. It's not like you have to blacklist dog_feral and dog_anthro, so why would you have to specifically blacklist dog_humanoid separately? And it's not so simple to deal with if it's part of a multi-tag line since you have to repeat the whole line with just that one thing changed. It gets worse if the line includes multiple species (the number of lines needed is 2^n, for n species on a line).
siral_exan said:
anthro explicitly refers to animals, from real species like wolves to fake ones like dragons. Pokémon species depend on how they are drawn, with an anthro vulpix being possible... but a gardevoir being more humanoid instead, since they have no animal traits.
Thought about this some more and realised the real problem with this statement. You're drawing an entirely subjective distinction between designs that are "animal-like" and things that are "not animal-like", and yet the definition of "animal" extends vastly beyond the likes of vulpes quoted as an example here. For example, consider Staryu:
(Thank you Posexe for doing that 721 Pokémon porn challenge, where would discourse be without you.)
Now I'm sure you're going to say that that shouldn't be tagged anthrofied. And yet, starfish exist, and are just as much animals as tigers (and more so than the likes of demons). Indeed, we have one very famous example of an anthro starfish:
Would you describe this as "humanoid"? If not, can we be supplied with a whitelist of every genus which is officially defined as "anthrofiable" by e621?
It gets even more absurd when fake species like dragons are granted "animal privileges". What, in the absence of real-world info to fall back on, can be said to distinguish them from Roggenrola? Is it the fact that they have (mostly) four limbs, two eyes and one mouth, even in feral designs?
Here's a feral Clefairy:
That clearly doesn't resemble any real-world species (despite someone having tagged that post rodent for some reason). In terms of body shape, it's much closer to Roggenrola than it is to Dragonite.
So is this post a humanoid?
If that's an anthro, where does the line between "anthro" and "humanoid" species designs sit? Can I get a full Pokédex sorted into the two categories? If it's a humanoid, how much closer to real-world species does the design have to go, while still excluding Staryu somehow?
Or if the only requirement is that a fictional species design must be recognisably based on some real species, so Staryu is "anthrofiable" but Clefairy is not, why are sergals allowed in the club?
(The original version of this post used Binacle as an example, but sadly nobody ever seems to have attempted to design an anthro barnacle. And to think they evolved the largest relative penis size in the animal kingdom for nothing.)