Topic that came up in discord.

The anthrofied wiki states that it is supposed to be used for feral/semi-feral/humanoid characters depicted as anthro. It also uses a number of generic not-specific-character pokemon as examples.

Should the 'character' of an anthro depiction of a fictional species be assumed to be a generic feral/semi-feral/humanoid of that species if no character is specified? How about real-world species? Should this assumption only apply to pokemon?

Tl;dr
Is this anthrofied?
post #428499

If yes, then how about this?
post #72283

I wouldn't really want to hinge discussion on the use of the word "character", because that word is used all over the place to mean "any being depicted in the image."
Anyway I don't think it's very useful to segregate out official-species cases, because it just results in extra tags being made for the same concept. (Do we really need digimorph? And in the absence of any tag, all the anthro-versions of palworld species are filtering into anthrofied)
It's as simple as -pokemon_(species) to prune them if I'm not after that.

If yes, then how about this?

I believe that at one point the anthrofied page mentioned that it was for things that had some standard/official depiction. This specification seems to have been lost at some rewrite.
There's no "official" depiction for a mythological creature, but there certainly is for a copyrighted creature.

I believe it should strictly be for established characters (i.e., those with character tags) instead of entire species, otherwise any given feral/semi-feral/humanoid species can be given that tag as a whole.

thegreatwolfgang said:
otherwise any given feral/semi-feral/humanoid species can be given that tag as a whole.

No? They have to have some accepted-standard depiction, otherwise there's nothing for them to differ from to begin with.
Which necessarily precludes it from being universally applied to them.

donteven said:
No? They have to have some accepted-standard depiction, otherwise there's nothing for them to differ from to begin with.
Which necessarily precludes it from being universally applied to them.

Real-world species have standard depictions. It makes as much sense to tag a no-name generic anthro fox 'anthrofied' as it does to tag a no-name generic eevee 'anthrofied', unless pokemon/digimon/pals are specified as an exception.

donteven said:
No? They have to have some accepted-standard depiction, otherwise there's nothing for them to differ from to begin with.
Which necessarily precludes it from being universally applied to them.

If you are going to give anthrofied to any species that deviated from their standard form, then the tag would be no different than just searching for species_name anthro.
If that were the case, I would have called for the invalidation for the tag.

regsmutt said:
Real-world species have standard depictions. It makes as much sense to tag a no-name generic anthro fox 'anthrofied' as it does to tag a no-name generic eevee 'anthrofied', unless pokemon/digimon/pals are specified as an exception.

Pokemon & digimon seem to be in a grey area since characters in the show can be virtually identical to other members of their species (e.g., ash's_pikachu just looks like a pikachu).
To avoid any confusion, we should really remove any example thumbnails that show instances where the character cannot be differentiated from generic members of their species.

regsmutt said:
Real-world species have standard depictions. It makes as much sense to tag a no-name generic anthro fox 'anthrofied' as it does to tag a no-name generic eevee 'anthrofied', unless pokemon/digimon/pals are specified as an exception.

Which is why the page previously said "A copyrighted (franchise) character or species...". Because that was the obvious dividing line.
More to the point, excluding species will have the effect of orphaning this concept for every franchise that isn't popular enough to have its own tag like pokemorph. So... Pokemon still gets special treatment, it'd just be nearly the only one.
post #4803184 post #4584310 post #4564659
None of these would have any tag to indicate that they are anthrofied versions.

thegreatwolfgang said:
If you are going to give anthrofied to any species that deviated from their standard form, then the tag would be no different than just searching for species_name anthro.
If that were the case, I would have called for the invalidation for the tag.

And you could accomplish the same thing for characters ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

donteven said:
Which is why the page previously said "A copyrighted (franchise) character or species...". Because that was the obvious dividing line.
More to the point, excluding species will have the effect of orphaning this concept for every franchise that isn't popular enough to have its own tag like pokemorph. So... Pokemon still gets special treatment, it'd just be nearly the only one.
post #4803184 post #4584310 post #4564659
None of these would have any tag to indicate that they are anthrofied versions.

Copyright tag+anthro seems to work fine.

The old definition was working. Not sure why someone felt necessary to remove 'species' from it, when that's been fine for years. Generally you don't just change the usage of a tag like that, without a major discussion about it first.

Just copyright+anthro won't work, due to the good old 'multiple characters' issue. Plus how do you filter out anthrofied pokemon without it? pokemon -anthro hits mons that are anthro in their canon depiction. Remember that an anthro can be further anthrofied.
post #4686998 post #4514801
Not tagging the latter as anthrofied makes things needlessly complicated.

And there's an obvious difference between the generic species — which have no default form in furdom — and franchise species which default to their official depiction. Anthrofied should continue to include the latter.

Not sure if pokemorph, digimorph, etc. are needed as subtags. It does seem odd to have those for a few specific franchises, while not having one for, let's say, Monster Hunter.