Implicating living_aircraft → living_machine
Link to implication

Reason:

An aircraft is a type of machine.

I thought an alias would be better, but that idea never really took off.

Related: I don't know if we should do anything between the aeromorph and living_aircraft tags…

This implication makes sense to me (implicating living_aircraft to --> living_machine.)

The aeromorph tag I'm a little unclear on whether it's for any living aircraft (in which case it needs to be aliased to living_aircraft) or if it's meant to be for airplanized/made-into-aircraft versions of characters, much like anthrofied, humanized, etc only for aircraft. If it's the latter option, then the wiki needs changed to reflect that. If it's the former option, then it needs aliased to living_aircraft because it would be the same thing. And if it's for living aircraft that are very anthropomorphic, then surely living_aircraft + anthro would already suffice without the need for a separate "anthro living_aircraft" tag. Unless I'm missing something...?

Plus one for this implication.

As for the difference between aeromorph and living_aircraft, it was suggested in the other thread that aeromorph should be used for anthropomorphized airplanes, and living_airplane for... um, 'feral' living airplanes.

But I'm not sure if that's a good idea. As far as I know, we don't tag any other species by anthro and feral. It'd be like tagging anthro_dragon and feral_dragon. So I still think it'd be better to alias those two.

EDIT:
Ah, now I remember why I was for keeping them separate at one point: because it's kind of weird to tag airplanes as feral, even if they're living.

Approving the implication.

Aeromorph tag is still in limbo though.

Genjar said:
Plus one for this implication.

As for the difference between aeromorph and living_aircraft, it was suggested in the other thread that aeromorph should be used for anthropomorphized airplanes, and living_airplane for... um, 'feral' living airplanes.

But I'm not sure if that's a good idea. As far as I know, we don't tag any other species by anthro and feral. It'd be like tagging anthro_dragon and feral_dragon. So I still think it'd be better to alias those two.

EDIT:
Ah, now I remember why I was for keeping them separate at one point: because it's kind of weird to tag airplanes as feral, even if they're living.

While that is a fair point, wouldn't searching living_aircraft -anthro get you the feral living_aircraft results? (because, like you mentioned, the feral tag might not be as reliably applied to living_aircraft) But tagging the anthro ones as anthro is a little bit more straightforward. And looking under both tags, I'm seeing a lot of the same images tagged with both aeromorph and living_aircraft. So if there's supposed to be a distinction between aeromorph and living_aircraft then it needs a major cleanup because most people using it aren't seeing the difference. No one would guess they were anything but synonyms by looking at what's tagged underneath them. Which makes me wonder: does it serve a purpose to have both? Or should we just alias aeromorph and living_aircraft together into one tag?

I'm fine with whatever method makes the most functional sense. I just want to take the opportunity to settle it while we're on the subject if at all possible.

furrypickle said:
Approving the implication.

Aeromorph tag is still in limbo though.
While that is a fair point, wouldn't searching living_aircraft -anthro get you the feral living_aircraft results? (because, like you mentioned, the feral tag might not be as reliably applied to living_aircraft) But tagging the anthro ones as anthro is a little bit more straightforward. And looking under both tags, I'm seeing a lot of the same images tagged with both aeromorph and living_aircraft. So if there's supposed to be a distinction between aeromorph and living_aircraft then it needs a major cleanup because most people using it aren't seeing the difference. No one would guess they were anything but synonyms by looking at what's tagged underneath them. Which makes me wonder: does it serve a purpose to have both? Or should we just alias aeromorph and living_aircraft together into one tag?

I'm fine with whatever method makes the most functional sense. I just want to take the opportunity to settle it while we're on the subject if at all possible.

I like the idea of using aeromorph and implicating it to living_machine. That seems like the most logical solution since I've actually heard of aeromorph outside of e6 before (not so much with living aircraft).

I'm still bummed that either nobody liked or nobody got my joke.

Durandal said:
…that idea never really took off.

Heheh.

parasprite said:
I like the idea of using aeromorph and implicating it to living_machine. That seems like the most logical solution since I've actually heard of aeromorph outside of e6 before (not so much with living aircraft).

Yeah, I don't see any reason living_aircraft and aeromorph should be separate.

Edit: I was going to suggest an alias, but apparently aeromorph refers to anthropomorphic aircraft. But I still don't think we need both tags...

Durandal said:
I'm still bummed that either nobody liked or nobody got my joke.
Heheh.

I get it now :)

The inanimate tag also needs to be sorted out.
Most boorus tag that for living objects, so it overlaps a lot with living machine. But not completely: things such as living food or furniture are clearly not machines.

Should living machine be implicated to inanimate?

Genjar said:
The inanimate tag also needs to be sorted out.
Most boorus tag that for living objects, so it overlaps a lot with living machine. But not completely: things such as living food or furniture are clearly not machines.

Should living machine be implicated to inanimate?

This makes logical sense, though I don't really like the tag name inanimate personally (I rather like living_object, but the difference doesn't matter that much really).