The bulk update request #3567 is active.

create alias poo_creature (0) -> poop_creature (190)
create alias living_feces (1) -> poop_creature (190)
create alias living_scat (14) -> poop_creature (190)
create alias semen_creature (0) -> cum_creature (223)
create alias sperm_creature (3) -> cum_creature (223)
create alias living_cum (13) -> cum_creature (223)

Reason: Standardise nomenclature for a number of identical unlikely species concepts.

I also wanted to do these:

alias living_latex -> latex_creature
alias living_rubber -> rubber_creature

...but that failed due to topic #23351 and topic #26844, which propose aliasing one to the other and then that to a third thing, and on reflection I'd really rather not get mixed up in the whole "is rubber latex" discourse right now.

How do people feel about unaliasing liquid_creature from water_creature, and using it instead as an umbrella tag for all kinds of goo and goo-adjacent species? I feel like there should be some kind of formal unification between the likes of lava_creature and cum_creature. I considered amorphous, which is mostly full of goo_creatures, but that could also be useful for grouping tags like tentacle_creature and flesh_creature.

EDIT: The bulk update request #3567 (forum #350079) has been approved by @slyroon.

wat8548 said:
How do people feel about unaliasing liquid_creature from water_creature

+1 form me

wat8548 said:
How do people feel about unaliasing liquid_creature from water_creature, and using it instead as an umbrella tag for all kinds of goo and goo-adjacent species? I feel like there should be some kind of formal unification between the likes of lava_creature and cum_creature.

That sounds like a good possibility. After all, liquid water is only one of many liquids, nor would we always necessarily be able to tell if it is water anyway, so the aliasing shouldn't have been made in the first place.

I considered amorphous, which is mostly full of goo_creatures, but that could also be useful for grouping tags like tentacle_creature and flesh_creature.

Amorphous just means it doesn't have a set physical shape, so amoebas, gas creatures, cloud creatures, and even energy creatures would qualify as amorphous, despite not being liquids.

clawstripe said:
After all, liquid water is only one of many liquids, nor would we always necessarily be able to tell if it is water anyway, so the aliasing shouldn't have been made in the first place.

I checked and not only was the alias made without forum discussion, the tag had never been used before that. So I don't think we'd be treading on any toes here.

clawstripe said:
Amorphous just means it doesn't have a set physical shape, so amoebas, gas creatures, cloud creatures, and even energy creatures would qualify as amorphous, despite not being liquids.

The other problem with "amorphous" is that some character designs, despite ostensibly being made up of liquids or gases, do in fact appear to have a set physical shape. Even the results for air_creature don't seem to have much shapeshifting going on. I think a blanket implication risks making fully amorphous characters harder to search rather than easier.

I am preferential to fluid_creature over liquid_creature so that creatures made of sand, gas, or anything else that flows can also be included. We could also have fluid_creature as a separate tag for liquid creatures and other kinds of amorphous creatures made of non-discrete particles. (Gas, sand, energy, fire. Not tentacles or shifting flesh.)

Also, somewhat unrelated but tentacle_creature and flesh_creature are in desperate need of a wiki. Especially on the latter there seems to be a lot of room left to interpenetration. Also for some reason snow_creature implies mineral_creature? What's up with that?

The bulk update request #3567 (forum #350079) has been approved by @slyroon.

wat8548 said:
The bulk update request #3567 is active.

create alias poo_creature (0) -> poop_creature (190)
create alias living_feces (1) -> poop_creature (190)
create alias living_scat (14) -> poop_creature (190)
create alias semen_creature (0) -> cum_creature (223)
create alias sperm_creature (3) -> cum_creature (223)
create alias living_cum (13) -> cum_creature (223)

Reason: Standardise nomenclature for a number of identical unlikely species concepts.

I also wanted to do these:
...but that failed due to topic #23351 and topic #26844, which propose aliasing one to the other and then that to a third thing, and on reflection I'd really rather not get mixed up in the whole "is rubber latex" discourse right now.

How do people feel about unaliasing liquid_creature from water_creature, and using it instead as an umbrella tag for all kinds of goo and goo-adjacent species? I feel like there should be some kind of formal unification between the likes of lava_creature and cum_creature. I considered amorphous, which is mostly full of goo_creatures, but that could also be useful for grouping tags like tentacle_creature and flesh_creature.

EDIT: The bulk update request #3567 (forum #350079) has been approved by @slyroon.

What's your opinion on the implication from living_latex to latex_creature? Seems that there's an implication suggesting that the latter is a subset of the former

snpthecat said:
What's your opinion on the implication from living_latex to latex_creature? Seems that there's an implication suggesting that the latter is a subset of the former

In the Latex BUR https://e621.net/forum_topics/41117 we discussed to make it the other way around, latex_creature implying living_latex. Already got approved.

Here is a copy of my reasoning in said BUR: I like to imagine the difference between latex_creature and living_latex like the difference between tentacle_creature and tentacles. The _creature tag requires a body to be visible, while tentacles only need to show the extremities. Living latex can show movement on its own without having a real body. Maybe a puddle of liquid latex moves on its own, a larger ball of latex encasing a victim or straight up a tentacle out of liquid latex being featured. The last part in particular reminded me of the tentacle_creature/tentacles difference, so we can apply this logic here as well.

Shouldn't poop_creature be named feces_creature to be in line with all the other feces tags?

cloudpie said:
Shouldn't poop_creature be named feces_creature to be in line with all the other feces tags?

yeah definitely

demonthedarkhound said:
In the Latex BUR https://e621.net/forum_topics/41117 we discussed to make it the other way around, latex_creature implying living_latex. Already got approved.

Here is a copy of my reasoning in said BUR: I like to imagine the difference between latex_creature and living_latex like the difference between tentacle_creature and tentacles. The _creature tag requires a body to be visible, while tentacles only need to show the extremities. Living latex can show movement on its own without having a real body. Maybe a puddle of liquid latex moves on its own, a larger ball of latex encasing a victim or straight up a tentacle out of liquid latex being featured. The last part in particular reminded me of the tentacle_creature/tentacles difference, so we can apply this logic here as well.

Yeah I can see that. Should the others (feces and cum) also follow the latex structure of [material]_creature implying living_[material]?