The tag alias #69107 snout -> invalid_tag has been rejected.

Reason: Kind of pointless. Even if you wanted to use it to find or exclude flatter-faced anthros it's not tagged consistently enough to be reliable.

EDIT: The tag alias snout -> invalid_tag (forum #398799) has been rejected by @scaliespe.

disagree, undertagging isn't a good reason to invalidate a tag. It is a good reason to use the tag more

As you said, it can be used to exclude flat-faced anthros

wandering_spaniel said:
disagree, undertagging isn't a good reason to invalidate a tag. It is a good reason to use the tag more

As you said, it can be used to exclude flat-faced anthros

Can it though?
post #4695384 post #4545467 post #3974532 post #4362479

You'd be better off using short_snout.

regsmutt said:
Can it though?
post #4695384 post #4545467 post #3974532 post #4362479

You'd be better off using short_snout.

All of those are mistagged imo. There is no snout present, not even a short one

wandering_spaniel said:
All of those are mistagged imo. There is no snout present, not even a short one

Do you think we should start tagging necks, shoulders, and ears?
If you really want to go through everything and slap 'snout' on it go ahead.

regsmutt said:
Do you think we should start tagging necks, shoulders, and ears?
If you really want to go through everything and slap 'snout' on it go ahead.

This same logic used to be applied to tail before it was revalidated a year or so ago: topic #33035
I guess it is pretty subjective whether snout is worth it or not though, fair enough

And yeah I do tag snouts when I see them and remember to lol

If anything, I believe snout should be used to help define what counts as anthro and what counts as humanoid. Firebrand is a big example of this.

sins_and_virtues said:
If anything, I believe snout should be used to help define what counts as anthro and what counts as humanoid. Firebrand is a big example of this.

the line between anthro and humanoid is more complicated than just that. it's also weird, and kind of inconsistent when applied to fictonal species, honestly. and it still feels a bit odd that aeromorphs are considered humanoid, when in most cases they share more visual traits with anthro characters.

sins_and_virtues said:
If anything, I believe snout should be used to help define what counts as anthro and what counts as humanoid. Firebrand is a big example of this.

There are plenty of humanoids that have snouts (animal_head characters, like King from Tekken that is a humanoid and not anthro), and plenty of anthros that don't have snouts (various styles of kemono don't have visible snouts but are anthro and not humanoid, and many real animals don't have snouts, like avians that have beaks instead).

dba_afish said:
the line between anthro and humanoid is more complicated than just that. it's also weird, and kind of inconsistent when applied to fictonal species, honestly. and it still feels a bit odd that aeromorphs are considered humanoid, when in most cases they share more visual traits with anthro characters.

Tbh I think new words should be workshopped for certain things currently considered 'humanoids.' Like, idk. Mechanoid for mechanical stuff, goblinoid or gremlinoid for ambiguous not-human no-specific-animal creatures???

regsmutt said:
Tbh I think new words should be workshopped for certain things currently considered 'humanoids.' Like, idk. Mechanoid for mechanical stuff, goblinoid or gremlinoid for ambiguous not-human no-specific-animal creatures???

I think humanoid is _mostly_ fine as is, I just think the line's a bit funky. subdividing the categories would be difficult to handle.

we definitely do need to discuss adding some new ones at some point, though, there are some characters around who have forms that are uncategorized, like dire_machines and other non-anthro'd living objects.

The tag alias snout -> invalid_tag (forum #398799) has been rejected by @scaliespe.