Implicating Anthrofied -> Anthro.

Reason: It became anthro, therefore it is anthro.

I wonder if this well go through this time lol

actually an alias would be more fitting

ippiki_ookami said:
actually an alias would be more fitting

But... I like this tag. :( It's useful to distinguish between characters that were always anthro, and the ones that are feral in canon. Also there are other similar tags to this, like furrification or ponification

ippiki_ookami said:
actually an alias would be more fitting

Fairly sure that has been suggested previously, and decided against.
Couldn't say why since I didn't pay it much attention, but I think I saw something about it at some point.

It doesn't offer anything that the anthro tag doesnt. Not to mention it goes in the face of twys. Anthro's good enough.

ippiki_ookami said:
It doesn't offer anything that the anthro tag doesnt. Not to mention it goes in the face of twys. Anthro's good enough.

Agreed 100%.

ippiki_ookami said:
It doesn't offer anything that the anthro tag doesnt. Not to mention it goes in the face of twys. Anthro's good enough.

I guess I can live with that if anthro tagging rules would be finally changed. Aliasing/implicating would suggest that changes suggested on forum #72311 (Always tagging anthro tag when there's anthro character.) come into effect, right?

Though I'd still rather keep this tag - if it goes then others, like humanized, should go for similar reason. Good luck getting support for removal of all of them.

Alias denied, if we mix these two together, we won't be able to filter images that were always anthro beforehand. If we make an implication, it eliminates the ability to search for one without the other. I'm sticking by SnowWolf's original stance on this because we've talked again and again about this one and decided this is the best option for it

Rainbow_Dash said:
If we make an implication, it eliminates the ability to search for one without the other.

Okay, I don't understand this part. How implication would ruin searches? Currently anthrofied -anthro in theory returns pictures where there is anthrofied character, and there is no feral character. It's very artificial search, and can be replace by anthrofied -feral. In practice it's even more dumb search since almost everyone don't care about anthro rule, and if someone tried to clean up this mess, xe would probably get neutral because admins apparently have no clear opinion on anthro tag. And I don't see other combination of tags that implication would ruin. anthro -anthrofied would still work okay. Same for single tag searches.

I could understand argument that this implication is against current rule, which is IMO stupid, but how is this going to ruin any searches? Examples please.

Rainbow_Dash said:
Alias denied, if we mix these two together, we won't be able to filter images that were always anthro beforehand. If we make an implication, it eliminates the ability to search for one without the other. I'm sticking by SnowWolf's original stance on this because we've talked again and again about this one and decided this is the best option for it

Alias undenied, there's nothing people can search or filter using anthrofied that they cant with just anthro. Unless you can provide us with a clear and common scenario where a user would be impeded by not having an anthrofied tag. Going by what a character normally is uses outside information anyway, which we're supposed to be dismissing.

And I don't have a problem with slapping the anthro tag on anthro images for the sake of standardization if that would ease some minds.

ippiki_ookami said:
Going by what a character normally is uses outside information anyway, which we're supposed to be dismissing.

So are we going to remove all tags that uses outside information about default state of character? Like humanized, crossgender, etc.

Bumping it.
There was no closure on this topic, and I think that this is good implication suggestion, unless current anthro definition is going to stay. And I'm for changing anthro definition to more intuitive. (forum #72311)

I still have no idea what RD statement means, and I don't agree with ippiki that interpreting ,using outside knowledge, what is visually present on the picture must be against twys.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
Bumping it.
There was no closure on this topic, and I think that this is good implication suggestion, unless current anthro definition is going to stay. And I'm for changing anthro definition to more intuitive. (forum #72311)

I still have no idea what RD statement means, and I don't agree with ippiki that interpreting ,using outside knowledge, what is visually present on the picture must be against twys.

Whoa there Gilda. You're taking what Ippiki is saying a bit wrong there, I think. He's saying that interpreting that the character is normally feral is not TWYS, because you're using outside information (other images being feral) to make that standpoint.

For what it's worth though, I was originally against aliasing anthrofied to anthro simply because I like searching for anthro art of characters that are normally feral, so it has had some use... But that's the same argument as using any bad tag- I'll just need to unlearn bad habits and go through proper methods, like searching a specific type + anthro, which will return the same images and more in the same vein. So, alias gets a +1 from me.

123easy said:
Whoa there Gilda. You're taking what Ippiki is saying a bit wrong there, I think. He's saying that interpreting that the character is normally feral is not TWYS, because you're using outside information (other images being feral) to make that standpoint.

I see no difference between anthrofied tag, and interpreting that blue female pegasus with rainbow hair should be tagged Rainbow Dash. You also need to have outside knowledge about how the character is named. Same goes for having outside knowledge to have an idea that horse with wings should be tagged pegasus. In these examples outside knowledge is used to interpret what is actually present on picture, and it's okay.

IMO twys is to eliminate things like: character don't have a pussy on picture, but I know that xe is herm, so I tag it herm anyway. This is tagging what is not visible on the picture. And this is not okay, but this is not the case with anthrofied, humanized, crossgender, and similar tags.

Anthrofied is for when a character that is normally not anthro, is made anthro and yes I suppose that does use outside information but I'm okay with adding that as an exception to the rule.

Anthro is for when there is an anthro figure engaged with a feral or human figure, last I checked

Perhaps we can sit down and think hard about what would be best for these two tags as I admit they are sloppy

Rainbow_Dash said:
Anthrofied is for when a character that is normally not anthro, is made anthro and yes I suppose that does use outside information but I'm okay with adding that as an exception to the rule.

Anthro is for when there is an anthro figure engaged with a feral or human figure, last I checked

Perhaps we can sit down and think hard about what would be best for these two tags as I admit they are sloppy

May I contribute to this, pls?

I think it would be sensible and straightforward to tweak the rule from 'only tag anthro when there's an anthro and a feral/human' to 'tag anthro when there's an anthro'.

I mean, it just feels so much more simple. And simplicity is one of the tagging aims, right?

Renard_Queenston said:
May I contribute to this, pls?

I think it would be sensible and straightforward to tweak the rule from 'only tag anthro when there's an anthro and a feral/human' to 'tag anthro when there's an anthro'.

I mean, it just feels so much more simple. And simplicity is one of the tagging aims, right?

This, and that would finally make this implication valid, also as some already said, there are people that use anthrofied to search for characters that are not normally anthro (and I myself use it for that reason too), and aliasing them would just ruin that.

Rainbow_Dash said:
Anthro is for when there is an anthro figure engaged with a feral or human figure, last I checked

Current wiki states:

The tag should only be used on pictures that have feral animals in addition to one or more anthro characters. If an image has only anthro characters, don't apply this tag.

There is nothing about humans in part I made bold. If this wiki is true then currently picture without feral character shouldn't get anthro tag even if there is a human in the picture.

I don't see what's the big deal about it.

I've seen other tag descriptions changed on the fly, with far less discussion. So why not just remove that bit from the wiki? As far as I can see, it was added by a single user and most folks here don't agree with it.

Genjar said:
I don't see what's the big deal about it.

I've seen other tag descriptions changed on the fly, with far less discussion. So why not just remove that bit from the wiki? As far as I can see, it was added by a single user and most folks here don't agree with it.

I looked at change history, and now I see that part about pics with human(s) and anthro(s) being tagged as anthro was removed by Riversyde on 2011 who was admin back then.

However, then I looked at implications and there is one part that made me laughed.

pokémorph implies anthro It was approved by Rainbow Dash. Really, Rainbow? You are okay with anthrofied pokemons being implied to anthro but you are not supporting this implication? You are such a flip-flop! Damn, I wanted to make that line since I changed my nickname.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
Current wiki states:
There is nothing about humans in part I made bold. If this wiki is true then currently picture without feral character shouldn't get anthro tag even if there is a human in the picture.

Then why do we have the anthro_on_human tag? We are going to change one or the other

Also, the reason I approved that is because a pokemorph is an anthrofied pokemon (however I should have made it anthrofied and not anthro)

Rainbow_Dash said:
Then why do we have the anthro_on_human tag? We are going to change one or the other

Also, the reason I approved that is because a pokemorph is an anthrofied pokemon (however I should have made it anthrofied and not anthro)

I would like to keep Anthro_on_human for cases where humans and anthrofied creatures are interacting; It's a good *searchable*. Just searching anthro + human doesn't guarentee you'll find it, and there's over 1K images with it. Seems like it's used enough to warrant staying.

Also, looking at it, anthrofied currently has almost 10K images attributed to them, and it is useful being able to search for usually feral characters as non-feral.... I take back my alias +1. Implication is fine, since they are anthro and should be tagged as such, makes sense.

Rainbow_Dash said:
Anthrofied is for when a character that is normally not anthro, is made anthro and yes I suppose that does use outside information but I'm okay with adding that as an exception to the rule.

Anthro is for when there is an anthro figure engaged with a feral or human figure, last I checked

Perhaps we can sit down and think hard about what would be best for these two tags as I admit they are sloppy

Okay, anthro should be now on every picture with at least one anthro character. If there's at least anthrofied character on picture then there's at least one anthro character on picture. Thefore implication is correct. LOGIC!

Yes!

Finally, now Gilda doesn't have to keep going on about it.

Ryuzaki_Izawa said:
Yes!

Finally, now Gilda doesn't have to keep going on about it.

Yes, Finally I can turn my whole attention to discuss how bad is Pinkamena tag. ^_^

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
Yes, Finally I can turn my whole attention to discuss how bad is Pinkamena tag. ^_^

And here we go again. :|

Ryuzaki_Izawa said:
And here we go again. :|

*snrk*

So. Since that got cleared up, how about that anthrofied → anthro implication? There are roughly 3500 images that are tagged with the former but not with the latter. Which they should have, since you can't have anthrofied without anthros.

Would be an useful implication, afaics.