There are a lot of images that are tagged animal_ears and human, over 3500, most of which are like this one. post #581561
I would like to go through these images, remove human from those images which do not contain a human, and add the humanoid tag, really just oid to human and remove the catgirl, foxgirl, etc. tags.
What about the other species tags? The image I thumbnailed is also tagged with fox, I don't question the validity of such tags when it's clear that she has a fox tail, just thought I'd bring it up for discussion.
Should humanoid be a species tag? Should tags like animal_ears and elf imply humanoid? If so, does that mean tags like animal_ears and cat_ears would need to be made into species tags?

I think that making *_ears tags a species tags is a good idea.

IMO you shouldn't go mass tagging pictures with animal_ears tag as humanoid. It would be only useful if some of animal_ears should be tagged humanoid and others not. Otherwise tagging humanoid it's either incorrect or should be done by implication instead - it's waste of tagging limit.

I don't think that this character should be tagged as fox (if it should then there should be some implication like fox_ears -> fox) , and for sure foxgirl is invalid tag. I thought that *girl tags were nuked some time ago.

I also just noticed that we have a bunch of *_tail tags (like fox_tail, animal_tail, etc.). I don't think that they should exist and probably should be aliased to *_ears tags because animal_ears is not, literally, tag for characters with animal ears, but:

Animal ears refer to a certain style of character, popularly known by the Japanese as kemonomimi (roughly "animal+ears"). These characters appear almost entirely human, but have the ears, tail, and sometimes paws or nose, of an animal. For example, a fox kemonomimi would be human and have fox ears and a fox tail.

Granberia said:
I think that making *_ears tags a species tags is a good idea.

Yep, that seems like a great idea. I don't see any reason to keep those as general tags now that we have the separate fake_ears tag.

And the consensus seemed to be that they should be tagged as humanoid instead of human, so I don't think there's any reason not to implicate animal_ears to humanoid. (It'd require some cleanup since so many of them are currently tagged as human, but that'd be easy to tag script.)

+1 for:

• Making *_ears a species tag.
• Nuking *_tail tags.
• Implicating *_ears to humanoid.
• Implicating elves and things to humanoid.
• Removing human tags.

This has been an issue for so long that it's wonderful to finally see the last bits of a plan forming to finally clean it up.

kemonomimi + <animal> tag is how it should work.
humanoid is fine to throw on, but <animal>_<appendage> is honestly kind of a silly tag to have.

Furrin_Gok said:
kemonomimi + <animal> tag is how it should work.
humanoid is fine to throw on, but <animal>_<appendage> is honestly kind of a silly tag to have.

kemonomimi + <animal> + humanoid ?
or
kemonomimi + <animal> + anthro ?

Lance_Armstrong said:
kemonomimi + <animal> + humanoid ?
or
kemonomimi + <animal> + anthro ?

I think +humanoid would be best. They look like human(oid)s with some minor animal features, instead of anthropomorphized animals.

Lance_Armstrong said:
kemonomimi + <animal> + humanoid ?
or
kemonomimi + <animal> + anthro ?

Pretty sure kemonomimi should imply humanoid anyways. If they aren't humanoid, they aren't kemonomimi.

From what I've seen, E621 avoids the japanese terms that are so common, in favor of translated or equivalent words.

Random said:
From what I've seen, E621 avoids the japanese terms that are so common, in favor of translated or equivalent words.

There is no such translation. Kemonomimi is the term used in English, as well, because damn if we can ever make up new ones!

How should we tag animal_ears/humanoid character fucked by feral character? Should it get bestiality tag? Should there be animal_ears_on_feral and/or humanoid_on_feral tags (this implies even more tags)?

Woah, why are we talking about the *_ears tags being species?
Not even close, we don't have bat_wings, or horsecock as species tags.
We're tagging the ears, not the species.
What if someone had a wolf with bunny ears, are we saying that's the same species as a human with bunny ears?
This is just a bad idea and would ruin what species tags are supposed to be.

Halite said:
Woah, why are we talking about the *_ears tags being species?
Not even close, we don't have bat_wings, or horsecock as species tags.
.

That's because we have "certain style of character, popularly known by the Japanese as kemonomimi (roughly "animal+ears")", and we don't have such thing for bat_wings and horsecock.
Animal_ears tag has always been used for this meaning.

It has been shortened to kemono btw

Lance_Armstrong said:
It has been shortened to kemono btw

Kemono tag has nothing to do with animal_ears tag. Animal ears is for characters that are almost human, but have few animal features (like ears or tail). Kemono... I think this is tag for people who can't type source:pixiv.

Granberia said:
Kemono... I think this is tag for people who can't type source:pixiv.

I laughed, thanks for that.

But seriously, -source:pixiv kemono shows that pixiv has over half of the kemono tags, a good portion of the rest probably just don't have sources.

The ears tags are to tag what type of ears a character has in an image.
It has nothing at all to do with their species.

Halite said:
The ears tags are to tag what type of ears a character has in an image.
It has nothing at all to do with their species.

That isn't actually what the tags are for. The *_ears tags are what replaced the kemomomimi set of tags (nekomimi->cat_ears, etc). They refer to being "a human character except now they have animal ears and probably a tail". For some reason people insist on keeping it separate from anthro and human, but what it really is is a human/animal hybrid leaning on the human side rather than the "anthro furry" side.

As the tags currently are, they aren't supposed to be tagged on anything else (e.g., an anthro cat with floppy dog ears should not be tagged dog_ears).

parasprite said:
That isn't actually what the tags are for. The *_ears tags are what replaced the kemomomimi set of tags (nekomimi->cat_ears, etc). They refer to being "a human character except now they have animal ears and probably a tail". For some reason people insist on keeping it separate from anthro and human, but what it really is is a human/animal hybrid leaning on the human side rather than the "anthro furry" side.

As the tags currently are, they aren't supposed to be tagged on anything else (e.g., an anthro cat with floppy dog ears should not be tagged dog_ears).

No, they aren't "what replaced" any tags, the ears tags existed along with those.
We then got rid of the *_girl tags because they were bad tags, and instead of aliasing them to invalid_tag because that would increase cleanup, we aliased them where we could to the *_ears_ tags because we assumed that the image should have that tag is it had the *girl tags previously.

These tags are not meant to be some kind of species tags, they literally are just labeling the kind of ears they character has, just like bat_wings labels the type of wings, or horsecock labels the type of penis.

If it's a human with cat ears, the appropriate tags are human and cat_ears.

animal_ears wiki states otherwise.
Moreover it states otherwise since 2009 when it was created by Arcturus. It was never meant to be used the way you're suggesting.

If it's a human with cat ears, the appropriate tags are human and cat_ears.

No, just no. Posts like post #581561
should not have human tag at all.

Granberia said:
animal_ears wiki states otherwise.
Moreover it states otherwise since 2009 when it was created by Arcturus. It was never meant to be used the way you're suggesting.

No, just no. Posts like post #581561
should not have human tag at all.

Wiki means nothing, none of that was written by an admin, it's user generated like any other wiki.

This is what's relevant to when we trashed the *girl and *boy tags:
https://e621.net/forum/show/140009

We aliased them away to the corresponding species, as per the discussion and work done by an actual admin.

And yes, it should have the human tag, because the rule here is that if it's a hybrid it get all the species tags that are part of the hybrid.
So since that's clearly part human, it gets a human tag.

I'm pretty sure that Arcturus was an admin when he created that wiki.

Nowhere in discussion you mentioned is stated by admin how *_ears tags should be used.
Here is current admin expressing opinion on whether animal_ears are furry or not - if animal_ears are literally animal ears then whole discussion doesn't make any sense.
If animal_ears are supposed to be considered hybrids and should be tagged human then I don't see why anthros shouldn't be tagged like that.

Halite said:

And yes, it should have the human tag, because the rule here is that if it's a hybrid it get all the species tags that are part of the hybrid.
So since that's clearly part human, it gets a human tag.

This is how I've always thought of it myself, but lately I've taken a more neutral stance by just sticking with humanoid. My only issue with that is if a character gets tagged cat_ears and isn't supposed to be tagged human or cat, then we have no species tags, which is just silly to me.

Granberia said:
I'm pretty sure that Arcturus was an admin when he created that wiki.

Nowhere in discussion you mentioned is stated by admin how *_ears tags should be used.
Here is current admin expressing opinion on whether animal_ears are furry or not - if animal_ears are literally animal ears then whole discussion doesn't make any sense.
If animal_ears are supposed to be considered hybrids and should be tagged human then I don't see why anthros shouldn't be tagged like that.

So centaurs, which have a horse body for their lower half get a human tag, but if you slap a pair of cat ears on a woman it doesn't?
That's absurd.

Halite said:
So centaurs, which have a horse body for their lower half get a human tag, but if you slap a pair of cat ears on a woman it doesn't?
That's absurd.

It's simple: tagging animal_ears and centaurs is currently not consistent. It's not the first inconsistency in history of e621.
Either there should be created implication animal_ears -> human, or centaur -> human implication should be deleted. Okay, I take back last sentence of my last post - I'm not strongly against tagging animal_ears with human (though it would be stupid if they ended up being tagged both human and humanoid), but it should be done by implication. Currently there's none.

Personally I think that centaurs shouldn't get human tag at all. It means that this picture:
post #501818
should be tagged as human_on_feral. Is this really what people searching for this tag want?

Halite said:
So centaurs, which have a horse body for their lower half get a human tag, but if you slap a pair of cat ears on a woman it doesn't?
That's absurd.

Some have argued that it shouldn't actually get the implication to human, mainly because of the issue that it becomes difficult to find human on centaur pairings. However, this issue would still exist without tagging them automatically because...well they are a hybrid species and people will tag them that way.

Yeah I agree though. To me there's definitely a huge difference between a taur horse with a upper human body (a centaur), a taur horse with an upper anthro body, and a taur horse with an upper feral body.

Granberia said:

Personally I think that centaurs shouldn't get human tag at all. It means that this picture:
post #501818
should be tagged as human_on_feral. Is this really what people searching for this tag want?

Seeing as it's currently tagged anthro_on_feral, I'd expect people searching for that to not want this even more than the human_on_feral. To me this is either feral_on_feral or both human_on_feral and feral_on_feral.

A completely crazy idea I just thought of. Make a category that has naga/centaur/lamia/etc. implied to it (something like hybrid, but not that; think of how we use intersex) and use the xxxxx_on_feral, etc. tags for that.

I don't have a good name for it, but if we can come up with one we could do this:

• centaur, naga, lamia, etc. -> xxxxx
• xxxxx_on_feral
• xxxxx_on_anthro
• xxxxx_on_human

This gives us the benefit of categorizing these tricky creatures while preventing needing a couple dozen extra tags for each.

Thoughts?

parasprite said:
Some have argued that it shouldn't actually get the implication to human, mainly because of the issue that it becomes difficult to find human on centaur pairings. However, this issue would still exist without tagging them automatically because...well they are a hybrid species and people will tag them that way.

Yeah I agree though. To me there's definitely a huge difference between a taur horse with a upper human body (a centaur), a taur horse with an upper anthro body, and a taur horse with an upper feral body.

Seeing as it's currently tagged anthro_on_feral, I'd expect people searching for that to not want this even more than the human_on_feral. To me this is either feral_on_feral or both human_on_feral and feral_on_feral.

A completely crazy idea I just thought of. Make a category that has naga/centaur/lamia/etc. implied to it (something like hybrid, but not that; think of how we use intersex) and use the xxxxx_on_feral, etc. tags for that.

I don't have a good name for it, but if we can come up with one we could do this:

• centaur, naga, lamia, etc. -> xxxxx
• xxxxx_on_feral
• xxxxx_on_anthro
• xxxxx_on_human

This gives us the benefit of categorizing these tricky creatures while preventing needing a couple dozen extra tags for each.

Thoughts?

I find it unlikely that there would be enough posts for that to be worthwhile.
I don't have any objection to them as tags though.

Halite said:
I find it unlikely that there would be enough posts for that to be worthwhile.
I don't have any objection to them as tags though.

There's ~800 posts under ~centaur ~naga ~lamia rating:e -solo, which is a sizable chunk. Not huge, but it would at least categorize them finally.

parasprite said:
There's ~800 posts under ~centaur ~naga ~lamia rating:e -solo, which is a sizable chunk. Not huge, but it would at least categorize them finally.

Oh, I see what you're saying, I misread the earlier post.
Sounds like a good idea if you can come up with a good tag for it.

parasprite said:
But seriously, -source:pixiv kemono shows that pixiv has over half of the kemono tags, a good portion of the rest probably just don't have sources.

Kemono is just a Japanese word for furry anthro. Kemonomimi is animal_ears.

parasprite said:
My only issue with that is if a character gets tagged cat_ears and isn't supposed to be tagged human or cat, then we have no species tags, which is just silly to me.

That's one of the reasons why I think humanoid should be changed into species tag, as suggested.

Halite said:
Sounds like a good idea if you can come up with a good tag for it.

All I can come up with is half-human or demi-human. Neither are terribly intuitive (and are currently used mostly for animal_ears), but it'd still better than tagging them as human.

Genjar said:

All I can come up with is half-human or demi-human. Neither are terribly intuitive (are currently used mostly for animal_ears), but it'd still better than tagging them as human.

I'd be more for half-human than demi-human. Demi-human just sounds like it should be half demon or something. The only way to keep something like this consistently clean would be to have a "only these species and that's it"-type rule with it...which seems a little over-the-top, but it could at least be scripted easily enough.

If only hybrid and interspecies weren't taken...

Demi-human sounds demeaning, like sub-human or something. But anyway, yeah, I can't come up with any good alternative names.