I've seen quite a few images, including a recent mini-flood of related ones, that tag anthropomorphic wolves as "werewolf". How do we know a character is a werewolf unless there is something explicit within the image to indicate this?

The following image, for example, is what I would consider a valid "werewolf", since it actually shows the transformation process underway.

post #265777

On the other hand, the next image is of what appears to be ordinary anthropomorphic wolves. In this case the "werewolf" tag is inherited by implication from the "worgen" tag, although there is nothing I see in this image to indicate that these are worgen, and not ordinary humanoid wolves. Besides, I would consider the worgen -> werewolf implication to be in error since, as I understand the history of the setting, not all worgen are capable of shapeshifting.

post #259966

Finally, in the following image (one of the recent mini-flood I mentioned) there is absolutely nothing in evidence to indicate any shape-shifting capability of the tagged characters.

post #266096

In the case of many "werewolf"-tagged images I don't think the use of the tag is in keeping with the "tag what you see" rule, since an ordinary anthro-wolf is indistinguishable from many of the characters which get this label.

Is there a way to tell if the character is a werewolf? Other than the transformation.

Keats said:
Is there a way to tell if the character is a werewolf? Other than the transformation.

Considering the nature of werewolves, a full moon in the background would be suggestive, especially if the werewolf is acting as if it'd like to rip out someone's throat. Actually, a wolf with exaggerated features, especially when compared with other characters in a picture; acting hostile; and otherwise being monstrous would be highly likely to be a werewolf, especially if the picture has a spooky, Halloweenish, or dark theme. It's not perfect, of course, as it could just be a normal anthropomorphic wolf who hasn't had his morning coffee yet.

Clawstripe said:
Actually, a wolf with exaggerated features.

Gotcha.

Clawstripe said:
Considering the nature of werewolves, a full moon in the background would be suggestive, especially if the werewolf is acting as if it'd like to rip out someone's throat.

While I certainly agree with you, tagging such an image "werewolf" would be in contradiction to "tag what you see and not what you know (or suspect)". I would think that this image should be tagged "wolf" and "moon" and leave the speculation to the viewer.

In your second example we can see blue glowing eyes. The shewolf to the left is actually a deathknight!
That makes her a worgen!
Worgen are werewolves!

Third example:
This ugly type of face is (sadly) associated with werewolves. While some werewolves have "normal" wolf faces as well, there are no non werewolves with that type of face.

Akkira said:
In your second example we can see blue glowing eyes. The shewolf to the left is actually a deathknight!
That makes her a worgen!
Worgen are werewolves!

Third example:
This ugly type of face is (sadly) associated with werewolves. While some werewolves have "normal" wolf faces as well, there are no non werewolves with that type of face.

I agree with your face argument, but I am cloven about the thing you said about the eyes...

on one side I feel that it demands knowledge that is not very obvious for the viewer, thus maybe violating the tag-what-you-see rule,

but then again, perhaps the people searching for warewolf might be looking for just that.

So maybe it all comes down to knowing what you're looking at, and what you actually see will always be clouded by what you know. Thus validating the warewolf tags? Perhaps?

Akkira said:
In your second example we can see blue glowing eyes. The shewolf to the left is actually a deathknight!
That makes her a worgen!

And what about all the "worgen" tagged on this site which do not have blue or glowing eyes. Do they suddenly, now, become not-worgen?

TWYS does not allow outside knowledge that cannot be determined from the image, itself. Knowing the artistic license which furries take with biology I'm certain you'll find examples of ordinary non-worgen anthro wolves with glowing eyes, just as there are plenty of worgen-tagged images which don't don't meet the criteria you used.

Worgen are werewolves!

I don't think that statement is 100% correct. I did my homework before I created this thread and checked out a number of sources which describe worgen and their history. Not all worgen are shapeshifters. Therefore it is incorrect to state that all worgen are werewolves. Therefore it is incorrect to automatically imply that any given worgen is a werewolf.

Do the following search: werewolf -worgen

You'll find quite a few examples of perfectly-ordinary anthro wolves tagged "werewolf."

You'll also find some of them with glowing eyes. You'll also find quite a few with green eyes, but you can also search wolf green_eyes -werewolf and find lots of non-werewolf wolves with those. Where do you draw the line, and how?

Even the image you use as your avatar is tagged "werewolf", although there is nothing in that image to indicate this is so. Green eyes in furrydom cannot be implied to mean "shapeshifter".

Third example:
This ugly type of face is (sadly) associated with werewolves. While some werewolves have "normal" wolf faces as well, there are no non werewolves with that type of face.

There aren't? How do we know this to be a statement that is true across-the-board? We don't. I've seen some pretty ugly anthro wolves in furry artwork, and no mention was made of them being werewolves.

The Big Bad Wolf from Little Red Riding Hood (search big_bad_wolf is almost always portrayed as bestial and ugly, and frequently with glowing eyes, but he isn't a shapeshifter. If you go by aesthetic appearance, alone, then you'd have to tag him as a werewolf, which would be incorrect. If you go by glowing eyes always meaning "worgen" then you'd have to tag him as a worgen, which is also incorrect.

Kimpumomo said:
but then again, perhaps the people searching for warewolf might be looking for just that.

Traditionally, werewolves are not depicted with glowing eyes. They are frequently red (or some other solid color) but even this cannot be taken as an indication that any given red-eyed wolf is a werewolf. As I stated, above, furries are fond of oddly colored fur and eyes, and given enough searching you'll probably find just about every combination of colors you can imagine for any given species.

post #224798

Although I agree with much of what red raven said, I still stand by the statement that tags should be there to help find what you are looking for.

it all comes down to how picky you are, doesn't it?

There are people who don't know all these facts about werewolves and are contempt in finding any anthromorphic wolf.

and then we have the anatomically-correct Nazis that only care about what is ACTUALLY in the picture.

we can please the first category easily by excessive tagging but the result would be chaos for the people looking for specific things.

if we please the picky people, we automatically assume the posh position that people need to know what they are looking for.

I guess that's why we have forums I guess.

You can't please everyone, Kimpumomo. That's a sad fact of life, and it applies to tagging philosophy, here. There are a LOT of things regarding tagging that I disagree with on this site, but the management has made things clear on many issues and we just have to live with it.

I'd love to be able to use "background knowledge" to tag images, but I've already been corrected a number of times by staff members for suggesting such things, and it always comes down to "tag what you see and not what you know". That can be extended with "or what you feel or what you suspect".

The bottom line is that you can tag a given character's name based upon uniquely identifying features of that particular character, but you can't even tag the character's gender unless you can tell it for absolute certain from the image, itself. Extend that philosophy to things like "werewolves" and you see why I named this thread " 'werewolf' tag ambiguity".

Applying the "tag what you see" rule may frequently run counter to common sense, but that's the rule, here, as people are fond of pointing out every time someone ventures to suggest otherwise.

The tagging system exists to help people find stuff that contains stuff. Tag what you see serves this end.

post #259966

I see a werewolf. It's something I'd want included in the search results if I searched werewolf. So, tag werewolf. Sorry if this is all a bit subjective for everyone's tastes but subjective isn't mutually exclusive with TWYS.

what if I uploaded an ink blob and told people to twys?

But I don't see a werewolf in that image. I see two wolves, one with oddly-colored eyes, but that's not unusual for any species in furry artwork. It's not something I'd want included in the search results for "werewolf". So, tag "wolf".

See the problem, here? This is precisely why we have so many mis-tagged images on this board. There are a lot of tags that do not have distinctive definitions, clearly outlined in a wiki page.

I think it's important, especially for ambiguous tags like this one, for a wiki page to delineate some criteria for identifying the target of the tag. The current wiki page for "werewolf" does not do so. We don't even have a wiki page for "worgen".

The simple fact, here, is that your search for "werewolf" is going to turn up a bunch of plain old ordinary anthro-wolves, will turn up some images of the "Big Bad Wolf", and is likely to miss some others that you might think are werewolves, simply because the tagger did not see a "werewolf" when he tagged the image.

Kimpumomo said:
what if I uploaded an ink blob and told people to twys?

this is not an ink blob

RedRaven said:
I think it's important, especially for ambiguous tags like this one, for a wiki page to delineate some criteria for identifying the target of the tag. The current wiki page for "werewolf" does not do so. We don't even have a wiki page for "worgen".

The guideline is generally be liberal in what you tag (especially see cub). You can ignore mis-tagged images in search results, what you can't do is search for them when they aren't tagged. Also see my argument in opposition to this guideline (for particular, narrowly-defined circumstances that interferes with blacklists) in forum #40409.

I'd note that worgen also have no tail.

Lyokira said:
I'd note that worgen also have no tail.

Most classic werewolves also didn't have a tail, thus rendering your argument invalid