Implicating zombie, vampire, mummy, etc -> undead.

Reason: Because they are.

While this isn't ALWAYS true... (some zombies are just mind-fucked, or virused or the like, some vampires don't actually die... etc) I agree with this idea. :)

let's see... not mummy, though-- it's possible, though unlikely it could be a, well, totally dead mummy, or someone dressed up as the above... BUT, the same is true for ANY tag suggesting a profession (firefighter, nurse, witchdoctor) for a character in an image..)

zombie
vampire

Uhmm... hmm what else..

ghoul
revenant
lich (also added lich_king implying lich BTW
dracolich
ghost?
specter?

Skeleton is out, because it coudl refer to an x-ray shot or a pile of bones.

spirit has a number of *cough* horses in it, but past that, spirits are not nessicarily dead things. the spirit of the earth, the trees, etc.

yeah, spirit shouldn't, though anything like a spirit- ghosts and specters and the like- that is dead/undead should.

Mummy as a profession? o.O; But then you could say that someone could dress up as a ghoul or revenant or lich or whatever so that would invalidate calling them undead as well. Since dressing up as them is to try to pretend to be them, I think that tagging it undead should still apply.

As for skeleton... I think it should be, and anything that just shows an xray should be retagged skeletal_structure and a pile of bones simply tagged bones (since if it's just a pile of bones how can you be so sure there's a whole skeleton there?)

I think mummy should imply, but for images with an actually dead mummy that wasn't undead...boy that's weird to say. Ok. So images where it's just a mummified character who is not, has not, and will not ever un-die should be tagged mummy_(dead).

As for skeleton...I think similarly but conversely it should not imply undead, and undead skellies should be tagged as skeleton_(undead). I mean, "skeletal_structure" is ok, I just think it's a bit cumbersome. Personal preference, really, rather than anything else.

hmm. Should we just do it as mummy_(undead), skeleton_(undead), vampire_(undead) etc. and just tag those that AREN'T undead with the normal mummy, vampire, skeleton etc. tags?

123easy said:
hmm. Should we just do it as mummy_(undead), skeleton_(undead), vampire_(undead) etc. and just tag those that AREN'T undead with the normal mummy, vampire, skeleton etc. tags?

As for vampire, I think it either should or should not be labelled undead, because there's no real way to tell from a picture which one it is. As for the others...I'm not sure. I'll get back to you.

123easy said:
hmm. Should we just do it as mummy_(undead), skeleton_(undead), vampire_(undead) etc. and just tag those that AREN'T undead with the normal mummy, vampire, skeleton etc. tags?

No that's way too complicated.

123easy said:Mummy as a profession? o.O;

I phrased that REALLY poorly. ^^; I was thinking profession like... class. 3 levels of mage, 2 of mummy. I dunno, it was a dumb statement ^^;;;

But then you could say that someone could dress up as a ghoul or revenant or lich or whatever so that would invalidate calling them undead as well. Since dressing up as them is to try to pretend to be them, I think that tagging it undead should still apply.

This is a fair concept.

As for skeleton... I think it should be, and anything that just shows an xray should be retagged skeletal_structure

eeeeh.. I still don't know.
you still have pictures like this post #96207 where skeletal structure isn't applicable, but the character doesnt' seem dead or post #51044 but I guess he would count as 'dressing up, and therefor undead" :) post #14785 too

and a pile of bones simply tagged bones (since if it's just a pile of bones how can you be so sure there's a whole skeleton there?)

well, the difference between bone and skeleton is this:

post #11646 post #65545 post #90411 it's reasonable in all of those, that almost the whole skeleton is there. whereas post #122292 post #89445 post #75379 are more 'piles of bone.

that said, skeleton DOES imply bone.

123easy said:
hmm. Should we just do it as mummy_(undead), skeleton_(undead), vampire_(undead) etc. and just tag those that AREN'T undead with the normal mummy, vampire, skeleton etc. tags?

I... would say no. that's complication. Mummies are pretty strait forward too and I personally think I like the thought that every bandage wrapped corpse is just WAITING to lurch up and eat your brains :3

Skeleton's the bitch, though. maybe skeleton_(undead) IS the best idea. or.. animated_skeleton? I think I like animated_skeleton...

which then leads to the fun implication chain...

*sings* Animated skeleton implies skeleton! Skeleton implies booone...

Also. death_knight should imply undead.

Agreed on death knight. As for the skeleton_structure links: the guy is using a bone-only hand to hold something, with rotted and torn flesh at the base of the forearm bones. He's undead. >_>; Would classify as a zombie, not a skeleton. Zombie and bone tags would be the ones I'd use there. The cute doggy could work either way- dressig up so 'counts' or skeletal structure since the paint is meant to imply a skeletal structure/skeleton. the skeletal wings one definitely would work under skeletal_structure because, well, that's what it is, a skeletal wing structure.

regarding piles of bones: The ones with the whole skeletons would fit under skeletal structure and bone, wouldn't they? And ones with just scattered bones would fit under just bones.

but then, we have to look at future tagging. People have to be able to get it right. :)

Hmm.

I dunno.

I almost want to say 'lump it all under skeleton' and let anyone with exposed bones be undead.... but, then, there's still the few xray iamges.

I guess, though, there's no reason that someone couldn't be tagged skeleton -> undead AND skeletal structure... but then. technically every intact set of bones should be 'skeletal structure'.

I dunno.

Maybe it'd jsut be 'easier' to say that if it COULD be undead, it's a skeleton, but if inert, it's bone laying around. I mean, people generally aren't going to specifically seek out bones in a skeleton formation laying on the ground... and if they are, they can filter through the others..

so, I guess I'm saying.. skeleton if it is, or could be undead, and bones if it's otherwise--laying on the ground, or in an x-ray sequence.

I dunno, though...

SnowWolf said:
so, I guess I'm saying.. skeleton if it is, or could be undead, and bones if it's otherwise--laying on the ground, or in an x-ray sequence.

I think that's actually pretty reasonable.

SnowWolf said:
every intact set of bones should be 'skeletal structure'.

Yup, that's exactly what I was thinking. if it's an exposed intact piece of a skeleton (having a bone or two showing doesn't really count; several joints at the least I'd say) then tag it skeletal_structure.

123easy said:
Yup, that's exactly what I was thinking. if it's an exposed intact piece of a skeleton (having a bone or two showing doesn't really count; several joints at the least I'd say) then tag it skeletal_structure.

I dunno. I think it's over complicating D:

a walking around skeleton would have skeleton skeletal_structure AND bones on it. which is correct enougg, but one Joe fur goes looking "what do I tag this'...?

I dunno. I thinkg the skeleton if undead, bones if otherwise idea's the best at this point. it's simple and uncomplicated and doesn't require the average user to figure out how to get to the wiki.

Implications added:

• zombie implies undead
• ghoul implies undead
• lich implies undead
• lich_king implies lich
• dracolich implies lich
• death_knight implies undead
• revenant implies undead
• vampire implies undead
• ghost implies undead
• specter implies undead
• mummy implies undead
• animated_skeleton implies undead