The bulk update request #9314 is pending approval.

remove alias aeromorph (0) -> living_aircraft (3435)

Reason: I'm not sure why dire_aircraft have their own separate tag identifying them, but both anthro_plane & Aeromorph have to alias into Living_aircraft. It seems like Aeromorph was originally aliased into Living_Aircraft around 9 years ago (topic #12353), when according to the users in the thread, "anthro_plane" existed as its own tag (while dire_aircraft did not), and both anthro and dire aircraft had a noticeably smaller tag count. At some point after, anthro_plane was also aliased into living_aircraft, and currently over 6 of the 44 pages in aeromorph are tagged with dire_aircraft. As well as such, the other tags created from this thread "terramorph" (which was only just removed today, after being used on a single image) and "hydromorph" (which to the best of my knowledge was never used), left no impact, so it doesn't seem reasonable to continue to lump in both humanoid aircraft (which *also* exists as a tag, and seems to rarely be used) with dire_aircraft, seemingly solely as a result of how rare the distinction seemed to matter in the past.
At the very least, the tags for everything involving living_aircraft could greatly benefit from being cleaned up. Like the tag "Living_airplane" *also* existing, despite offering seemingly no further distinction than "no anthro helicopters," and itself being rarely used.

TLDR: Aeromorph should exist as a tag referring solely to anthro aircraft, as dire_aircraft exists solely for feral aircraft, with both implying living_aircraft.

Hmm...
I'm ok with this as long as all the other anthro vehicles and whatnot have matching tag trees. I guess we could just use anthro_* (anthro_car etc) for those since they don't have their own terms?

(*I don't know fuck all about this topic though. I'm assuming "aeromorph" does unambiguously refer to the anthro ones and not the "dire" feral ones?)

wandering_spaniel said:
Hmm...
I'm ok with this as long as all the other anthro vehicles and whatnot have matching tag trees. I guess we could just use anthro_* (anthro_car etc) for those since they don't have their own terms?

"anthro" planes currently are categorized as airplane_humanoid (with vehicle_humanoid being the parent of all of them). so we'd probably alias these tags to that.

currently anthro is used only for mostly animal-based characters, other stuff is considered humanoid regardless. I'm not really 100% on if this is a policy I totally agree with, but that's where we currently stand.

wandering_spaniel said:
(*I don't know fuck all about this topic though. I'm assuming "aeromorph" does unambiguously refer to the anthro ones and not the "dire" feral ones?)

_{also we really probably ought to fully canonize dire or dire_form or something as a fully-fledged form category at some point.}

dba_afish said:
currently anthro is used only for mostly animal-based characters, other stuff is considered humanoid regardless. I'm not really 100% on if this is a policy I totally agree with, but that's where we currently stand.

I reaaaally don't like this either. I have a feeling most people don't? Maybe we can just officially get this changed? This rule just feels so pedantic and it makes searching and tagging worse for no reason imo

wandering_spaniel said:
I reaaaally don't like this either. I have a feeling most people don't? Maybe we can just officially get this changed? This rule just feels so pedantic and it makes searching and tagging worse for no reason imo

I can see a reason for it, especially when we get into situations involving stuff outside of the already kinda shark-like aerodynamic things and start looking at normal robot-ass robots and piranha plant humanoids and stuff. the line gets pretty blurry... although, if I'm being honest, the line can get pretty blurry for some animals as well, especially some aquatic animals.

For reference, an example of aeromorph is the work of artist Sat_v12

_{With the current living_aircraft tag it is aliased to, it goes alongside Disney Pixar's Cars universe looking examples. It's nice to separate the humanoid kind out!}

post #4734716

dba_afish said:
"anthro" planes currently are categorized as airplane_humanoid (with vehicle_humanoid being the parent of all of them). so we'd probably alias these tags to that.

currently anthro is used only for mostly animal-based characters, other stuff is considered humanoid regardless. I'm not really 100% on if this is a policy I totally agree with, but that's where we currently stand.

That's a policy I'm 100% against. The "humanoid" designation is already useless enough as it is, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if "only certain things being anthropomorphized count as 'anthro'" is a non-negligible factor in those tags' decay.

dba_afish said:
"anthro" planes currently are categorized as airplane_humanoid (with vehicle_humanoid being the parent of all of them). so we'd probably alias these tags to that.

currently anthro is used only for mostly animal-based characters, other stuff is considered humanoid regardless. I'm not really 100% on if this is a policy I totally agree with, but that's where we currently stand.

I don't know if this has ever been an "official" policy (more official than random wiki edits, that is), but I feel like the real distinction between humanoid and anthro is (or should be) that humanoids are essentially humans with non-human parts stuck on, and anthros are the original "thing" (usually animals, but aircraft in this case) with the body plan rearranged to match a human form. That would put most (arguably all) aeromorphs in the anthro category in my book.
That's also probably how I'd tag it without thinking about it. The nose of the plane looks like a snout on an anthro. This is for the same reason that I would tag any snouted robot as anthro despite not technically having "real" animal traits (ie. synth_(vader-san)). When I look up "aircraft_humanoid," I fully expect to see stuff like post #1017101 or post #1865522, not these shark-looking things. Or in other words, if you replace all the glass and metal with scales or fur, and that would be good enough to tag as anthro, I don't see why the mechanical version of that ought to be considered humanoid.

side note: aeromorph synth!!

spe said:
I don't know if this has ever been an "official" policy (more official than random wiki edits, that is), but I feel like the real distinction between humanoid and anthro is (or should be) that humanoids are essentially humans with non-human parts stuck on, and anthros are the original "thing" (usually animals, but aircraft in this case) with the body plan rearranged to match a human form. That would put most (arguably all) aeromorphs in the anthro category in my book.
That's also probably how I'd tag it without thinking about it.

100% agree

spe said:
I don't know if this has ever been an "official" policy (more official than random wiki edits, that is)[...]

topic #21516

dba_afish said:
topic #21516

Well, that's an interesting read, though it seems more like an argument about the subject that eventually fizzled out rather than an official verdict on how such posts should be tagged. Someone in that thread actually did suggest having a new tag specifically for such anthropomorphized vehicles that could be used to properly distinguish them from the vehicle_humanoid tag without explicitly calling them anthros, which probably would be our best bet here. I often filter humanoid out from searches and... besides the tag already being horribly misused, throwing all these airplane characters in the humanoid tag just makes it worse.

I was under the impression that "anthro" is a body type. I don't see any possible benefit to making a separate tag for non-animal anthros. It would be a rather arbitrary division.

Edit: I did think of one benefit, but that's already covered by putting any existing vehicular or animate inanimate subdivisions on the blacklist. Our tag system has a lot of redundancies for that very reason.

lendrimujina said:
I was under the impression that "anthro" is a body type. I don't see any possible benefit to making a separate tag for non-animal anthros. It would be a rather arbitrary division.

Edit: I did think of one benefit, but that's already covered by a little thing called "the blacklist".

I think I would prefer to treat body forms as a separate concept completely agnostic to species, but it seems like that was a controversial idea 6 years ago. Things might have changed since then, though. Worth a shot?

spe said:
Well, that's an interesting read, though it seems more like an argument about the subject that eventually fizzled out rather than an official verdict on how such posts should be tagged. Someone in that thread actually did suggest having a new tag specifically for such anthropomorphized vehicles that could be used to properly distinguish them from the vehicle_humanoid tag without explicitly calling them anthros, which probably would be our best bet here. I often filter humanoid out from searches and... besides the tag already being horribly misused, throwing all these airplane characters in the humanoid tag just makes it worse.

honestly, I don't really see much of point in having a tag for non-animal-based anthropomorphized characters that's seperate from anthro. having them under humanoid instead already causes some confusion as it is. these characters "feel" like anthros and that's really what they should be tagged as.

The insistence on keeping anthros animals only has always been dumb. Pointy snouted things with fox ears aren't what people searching or blacklisting 'humanoid' are intending to catch just because they're metal.