Topic: [APPROVED] Tonight's Random Implications

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

Siral Exan

Privileged

I don't think we should have them imply monster, for a similar reason we don't imply any of the Undertale "monsters", characters or species, to monster. The tag's meant to be used for when something looks sufficiently monstrous, so in theory anything that normally looks like a monster can be made to look less so, eventually to where the tag wouldn't be applicable. The implication would essentially gatekeep the tag to versions that look sufficiently like a monster, and I'm sure there's images of this creature that don't look monstrous enough to get tagged such.

Watsit

Privileged

siral_exan said:
I don't think we should have them imply monster, for a similar reason we don't imply any of the Undertale "monsters", characters or species, to monster. The tag's meant to be used for when something looks sufficiently monstrous, so in theory anything that normally looks like a monster can be made to look less so, eventually to where the tag wouldn't be applicable. The implication would essentially gatekeep the tag to versions that look sufficiently like a monster, and I'm sure there's images of this creature that don't look monstrous enough to get tagged such.

Whilst I agree that they don't and shouldn't imply monster, it seems most people completely ignore that it's supposed to be for characters/creatures that look "sufficiently monstrous". Just a quick glance at the first row of monster search results nabs us:
post #3711586 post #3709295 post #3709256
and the rest of the first page of results isn't much better.

It's in a very similar situation to alien here; while there could be use for it when it's restricted to very specific criteria, most people tagging it completely ignore that and base it on whether some people call them a monster or not, making the tag meaningless. It might be better to completely invalidate monster, alias it to invalid_tag, and have a tag like monstrous or monstrous_creature instead that makes its use more apparent (though what counts as "monstrous" could be a bit too subjective).

On the topic of monsters, however, wtf is with monster_girl_(genre)?

Monster girls are a common occurrence in anime and manga. As the name states, they feature slightly animal- or monster-like traits such as horns and wings yet also usually retain a humanoid face and midsection.

Despite the name, it should be noted that this tag applies to both intersex and male characters as well as females.

They're female humanoid animals, often found in anime and manga, but they don't have to be female... so they're just humanoids? That's a vanity tag if I ever saw one.

Clawstripe

Janitor

I'd certainly call this monstrous (the only tikbalang on the site currently).
post #3631712

Still, someone could indeed depict a tikbalang in a cute, non-monstrous manner while still being recognizable as a tikbalang, so I took the advice and removed that implication.

watsit said:
Whilst I agree that they don't and shouldn't imply monster, it seems most people completely ignore that it's supposed to be for characters/creatures that look "sufficiently monstrous". Just a quick glance at the first row of monster search results nabs us:
post #3711586 post #3709295 post #3709256
and the rest of the first page of results isn't much better.

It's in a very similar situation to alien here; while there could be use for it when it's restricted to very specific criteria, most people tagging it completely ignore that and base it on whether some people call them a monster or not, making the tag meaningless. It might be better to completely invalidate monster, alias it to invalid_tag, and have a tag like monstrous or monstrous_creature instead that makes its use more apparent (though what counts as "monstrous" could be a bit too subjective).

I can see monstrous and monstrous_creature causing similar issues, as well as the same ones to why we invalidated cute. One person's cute can be another person's monstrous and even both at the same time. It likely is best to replace monster with a generic_monster tag solely for non-specific monster beings such as Sully from Monsters, Inc. or various monster characters like Grover and Tully from Sesame Street. The main criteria for tagging is that it's for monsters that can't be described with other species tags, so ogres, werecreatures, tikbalang, vampires, Frankenstein's creature, and whatnot wouldn't be tagged with generic_monster (or monster for that matter).

On the topic of monsters, however, wtf is with monster_girl_(genre)?

Monster girls are a common occurrence in anime and manga. As the name states, they feature slightly animal- or monster-like traits such as horns and wings yet also usually retain a humanoid face and midsection.

Despite the name, it should be noted that this tag applies to both intersex and male characters as well as females.

They're female humanoid animals, often found in anime and manga, but they don't have to be female... so they're just humanoids? That's a vanity tag if I ever saw one.

They sound a lot like kemonomini that use beings often regarded as monsters as a base model instead of regular animals. We don't tag kemonomimi but as whatever animal humanoid they are – nekomimi or catgirls as cat_humanoid for example. By extension, monster_girl_(genre) ought to be invalidated, and the appropriate species humanoid (as appropriate; some might be indistinguishable from a human) used in its place.

  • 1