Topic: [APPROVED] non-humanoid_creature BUR

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

DubsTheFox

Janitor

The bulk update request #2653 is active.

create alias ambiguous_non-humanoid_creature (3) -> ambiguous_gender (303021)
create alias anthro_on_non-humanoid_creature (10) -> anthro (3243952)
create alias anthro_penetrating_non-humanoid_creature (0) -> anthro_penetrating (151329)
create alias clothed_non-humanoid_creature (0) -> clothed (1111744)
create alias dominant_non-humanoid_creature (9) -> dominant (145480)
create alias female_non-humanoid_creature (0) -> female (2487039)
create alias feral_on_non-humanoid_creature (1) -> feral (602653)
create alias feral_penetrating_non-humanoid_creature (0) -> feral_penetrating (46749)
create alias gynomorph_non-humanoid_creature (0) -> gynomorph (188668)
create alias humanoid_on_non-humanoid_creature (1) -> humanoid (438928)
create alias human_on_non-humanoid_creature (1) -> human (363458)
create alias human_penetrating_non-humanoid_creature (0) -> human_penetrating (55598)
create alias intersex_non-humanoid_creature (1) -> intersex (239059)
create alias larger_non-humanoid_creature (2) -> size_difference (331496)
create alias male_non-humanoid_creature (2) -> male (2438887)
create alias non-humanoid_creature (6) -> invalid_tag (1)
create alias non-humanoid_creature_on_bottom (2) -> invalid_tag (1)
create alias non-humanoid_creature_on_human (0) -> human (363458)
create alias non-humanoid_creature_on_non-humanoid_creature (0) -> invalid_tag (1)
create alias non-humanoid_creature_on_top (1) -> invalid_tag (1)
create alias non-humanoid_creature_penetrated (0) -> penetration (821009)
create alias non-humanoid_creature_penetrating (1) -> penetration (821009)
create alias non-humanoid_creature_penetrating_anthro (0) -> anthro_penetrated (191812)
create alias non-humanoid_creature_penetrating_human (0) -> human_penetrated (30537)
create alias non-humanoid_creature_to_anthro (1) -> transformation (76145)

Reason: Unnecessary tags. 90% of the creatures on e621 are non-humanoid, and most of them have a fitting tag already.
I mentioned it in topic #33635 and almost forgot about it. No one said those tags are relevant, so here is the BUR.

Tags that don't have a good alias:
non-humanoid_creature
non-humanoid_creature_on_bottom
non-humanoid_creature_on_non-humanoid_creature
non-humanoid_creature_on_top

EDIT: The bulk update request #2653 (forum #337920) has been approved by @slyroon.

Updated by auto moderator

Waydence

Member

Why not

alias dominant_non-humanoid_creature -> dominant
alias larger_non-humanoid_creature -> size_difference
alias smaller_non-humanoid_creature -> size_difference

spe

Admin

“Non-humanoid creature” is horribly ambiguous, so it should be aliased away… but I have wondered before if should have a tag for the body type of things like sentient plants, tentacle monsters, eldritch horrors, and so on. They’re not really “feral,” and they definitely don’t fit under any of the other body type tags. That seems to be mostly what these “non-humanoid creature” tags are being used for, though the name is bad for a number of reasons.

DubsTheFox

Janitor

waydence said:
Why not

alias dominant_non-humanoid_creature -> dominant
alias larger_non-humanoid_creature -> size_difference
alias smaller_non-humanoid_creature -> size_difference

Changed that

scaliespe said:
...but I have wondered before if should have a tag for the body type of things like sentient plants, tentacle monsters, eldritch horrors, and so on...

flora_fauna, plant_monster, tentacle_monster, plant_tentacles would come to my mind. I am not sure about eldritch horrors. I am not really into that, I googled it. Maybe tentacle_humanoid could be a fitting for some of them.

spe

Admin

dubsthefox said:

flora_fauna, plant_monster, tentacle_monster, plant_tentacles would come to my mind. I am not sure about eldritch horrors. I am not really into that, I googled it. Maybe tentacle_humanoid could be a fitting for some of them.

Those are species - I’m talking specifically about a body type that includes all of them, something for a general “amorphous” body type. Maybe even call it amorphous, I dunno.

I’m just speculating at the moment anyway, it’s not super relevant to this BUR except that I think these tags were an attempt (a poor one) at establishing such a body type tag as I’m proposing.

wat8548

Member

scaliespe said:
Those are species - I’m talking specifically about a body type that includes all of them, something for a general “amorphous” body type. Maybe even call it amorphous, I dunno.

I’m just speculating at the moment anyway, it’s not super relevant to this BUR except that I think these tags were an attempt (a poor one) at establishing such a body type tag as I’m proposing.

I agree that a "wastebasket" sixth form tag would be quite useful in addition to the current five-and-a-half, to cover everything not explicitly covered elsewhere. Another example I can think of is those "object show" characters that caused all that BUR kerfuffle a while back.

A slight oddity here is that currently, tentacles on their own are not allowed to be tagged as a character. This has always struck me as a bit inconsistent with our other tagging standards.

If all else fails, we could always invent our own jargon for it. The meanings of feral and taur on this site are already entirely divorced from dictionary definitions, after all.

how about mimiff

spe

Admin

wat8548 said:
I agree that a "wastebasket" sixth form tag would be quite useful in addition to the current five-and-a-half, to cover everything not explicitly covered elsewhere. Another example I can think of is those "object show" characters that caused all that BUR kerfuffle a while back.

A slight oddity here is that currently, tentacles on their own are not allowed to be tagged as a character. This has always struck me as a bit inconsistent with our other tagging standards.

I agree, especially because it causes things like this to be tagged as “zero pictured.”

If all else fails, we could always invent our own jargon for it. The meanings of feral and taur on this site are already entirely divorced from dictionary definitions, after all.

how about mimiff

My amorphous suggestion would probably work for plant and tentacle monsters, blob creatures like ditto, possibly even waddling_heads (Kirby) and other creatures of vague or indefinite shape, but probably wouldn’t work so well for those object show things or animate inanimates…

Mimiff would be… annoyingly appropriate, given its “definition,” but I’d really hate to immortalize the moron who came up with that tag. lol

Watsit

Privileged

scaliespe said:
I agree, especially because it causes things like this to be tagged as “zero pictured.”

It shouldn't be:

Tentacles should not be counted as a character unless they are attached to a visible character such as an octopus or a tentacle monster.

And you can clearly see the tentacle monster (which is already tagged) with an eye and teeth on a body from which some tentacles are coming from.

spe

Admin

watsit said:
It shouldn't be:
And you can clearly see the tentacle monster (which is already tagged) with an eye and teeth on a body from which some tentacles are coming from.

Perhaps in that case, yeah. Regardless, I feel it’s akin to something like disembodied_hand, which does get tagged as a character. A tentacle is clearly still part of a living organism, and seems to be the sole exception to tagging living organisms as characters. Even ambient insects are tagged as characters, which I’ve always found to be a bit strange - but not the disembodied tentacle of some living creature, simply because it’s a tentacle and not some other body part.

  • 1