Topic: Tag un-implication: centaur -> human

So, there are a few images of centaurs where the upper body is clearly not human. I have one at hand.
post #517051
This seems like a pretty poor implication, especially considering that centaurs can be anthro characters attached to a horse body.

JoeX said:
So, there are a few images of centaurs where the upper body is clearly not human. I have one at hand.
post #517051
This seems like a pretty poor implication, especially considering that centaurs can be anthro characters attached to a horse body.

That is not a centaur.

Halite said:
That is not a centaur.

Well then. I look dumb. :I Okay, so that wasn't the best example, but my point still stands.

JoeX said:
Well then. I look dumb. :I Okay, so that wasn't the best example, but my point still stands.

Not really, to be a centaur, you have a horse bottom and a human top.
Anything else with a 4 legged bottom and a torso on top is a taur, but not a centaur.

Yep. But do we really need to implicate or tag centaurs as humans, when we already have a species tag for them?

I'm almost certain that if someone searches for human, they're not looking for centaurs. And the implication makes it impossible to find (among other things) centaur x human pics.

Genjar said:
Yep. But do we really need to implicate or tag centaurs as humans, when we already have a species tag for them?

I'm almost certain that if someone searches for human, they're not looking for centaurs. And the implication makes it impossible to find (among other things) centaur x human pics.

This. (Emphasis added.)

But just tagging them as both seems like an old holdout from before they were their own species tag. Now it just seems redundant and not as useful as it once was.

Genjar said:
Yep. But do we really need to implicate or tag centaurs as humans, when we already have a species tag for them?

I'm almost certain that if someone searches for human, they're not looking for centaurs. And the implication makes it impossible to find (among other things) centaur x human pics.

Rule is that hybrid species are tagged with all species that make up the hybrid.
Unless that rule changes, that's how we treat centaurs since they're a human/horse hybrid.

Halite said:
Rule is that hybrid species are tagged with all species that make up the hybrid.
Unless that rule changes, that's how we treat centaurs since they're a human/horse hybrid.

...Except it's not considered enough of hybrid to be implicated to the hybrid tag. That's either an oversight, or it's a sign that people don't really see it as a hybrid anymore (regardless of its origin story) but instead see it as a stand-alone species.

We also don't tag it with horse anymore, even though they are half-horse just as much as they are half-human.

Personally I think we should tag centaurs with humanoid and equine, and probably hybrid. But not horse or human because it is neither.

Halite said:
Rule is that hybrid species are tagged with all species that make up the hybrid.
Unless that rule changes, that's how we treat centaurs since they're a human/horse hybrid.

Yeah, by the way, Chimeras work the same or its only chimera species?

Inverse centaur btw post #357141

Support for Centaurs being their own species for long enough that they no longer need the human + horse hybrid tag. Plus centaurs can be non-horse or non-human centaur subspecies in fantasy.

Halite said:
Rule is that hybrid species are tagged with all species that make up the hybrid.
Unless that rule changes, that's how we treat centaurs since they're a human/horse hybrid.

I've never seen that rule myself, but if it exists then it needs to be fixed. Mermaids aren't tagged as fish and human, gryphons aren't tagged as lion and eagle, pegasi aren't tagged as horse, etc.

If it already has a well-known species tag, I don't see any need to break it down to multiple species.

123easy said:
Plus centaurs can be non-horse or non-human centaur subspecies in fantasy.

Those are just taurs.

But I still support this un-implication due to Genjars argument.

Genjar said:
Yep. But do we really need to implicate or tag centaurs as humans, when we already have a species tag for them?

I'm almost certain that if someone searches for human, they're not looking for centaurs. And the implication makes it impossible to find (among other things) centaur x human pics.

furrypickle said:
...Except it's not considered enough of hybrid to be implicated to the hybrid tag. That's either an oversight, or it's a sign that people don't really see it as a hybrid anymore (regardless of its origin story) but instead see it as a stand-alone species.

We also don't tag it with horse anymore, even though they are half-horse just as much as they are half-human.

Personally I think we should tag centaurs with humanoid and equine, and probably hybrid. But not horse or human because it is neither.

It implies equine, it was decided that non-horse equines count at centaurs too.
Chimera style hybrids, where the creature is parts of different creatures put together as opposed to the typical hybrid which is a blending of species like mules, are still hybrids and should be tagged as such.
Chimera even implies hybrid.

A lack of implication, or tagging doesn't mean it's not valid to tag it.
Generally it means bad tagging.

Peekaboo said:
Those are just taurs.

But I still support this un-implication due to Genjars argument.

Taur as a term is derived from centaur, the first of the species to so be designated. It is the root word from which taur descends in its current meaning (or rather the ancient form, 'kentauros', is, but you understand what I mean).

Necroing, because it seems that this discussion was forgotten without any consensus whether implication should be removed or not.

I'm for removing this for reasons mentioned here.
Additionally centaurs are the only one species that currently have implication to human. I don't know why thing tagged with centaur are implicated to human and are supposed to have human torso while, for example, mermaids apparently don't.

More generally I don't see a point with tagging human tag to half-human hybrids when majority of site contains anthros which are pretty much half-human hybrids. I think that human tag should be for humans only because this is a furry site.

Granberia said:
More generally I don't see a point with tagging human tag to half-human hybrids when majority of site contains anthros which are pretty much half-human hybrids. I think that human tag should be for humans only because this is a furry site.

Yeah, that. If I'm looking for "human" I'm looking for humans. From a usability point of view, this implication also makes it impossible to search for images that have a human and a centaur (well, centaur human_on_anthro helps for explicit images, but (a) surely there are more such images than that search finds (so I suspect that it is undertagged), and (b) this does nothing for safe/questionable, or explicit images lacking direct interaction between them).

Snowy said:
Yeah, that. If I'm looking for "human" I'm looking for humans. From a usability point of view, this implication also makes it impossible to search for images that have a human and a centaur (well, centaur human_on_anthro helps for explicit images, but (a) surely there are more such images than that search finds (so I suspect that it is undertagged), and (b) this does nothing for safe/questionable, or explicit images lacking direct interaction between them).

I'm pretty sure that any taur isn't supposed to be tagged anthro, so they shouldn't get human_on_anthro. Maybe human_on_taur, or something like that.

I had an idea in forum #149919 that is relevant to this discussion but I'm not sure of the logistics yet (okay mostly the name) that's similar to how intersex functions except for species. Perhaps someone here has some ideas.

Summary:

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

Again, I support this un-implication.

If we stop tagging human hybrids as human, then shouldn't we stop tagging all parts of all hybrids?
Should centaurs still be tagged as equine if we can't tag them with human?
They're at least as human as they are equine.

Halite said:
If we stop tagging human hybrids as human, then shouldn't we stop tagging all parts of all hybrids?
Should centaurs still be tagged as equine if we can't tag them with human?
They're at least as human as they are equine.

I wish we could stop tagging all parts of a hybrid, but there's a problem.

See, centaurs have been around for ages. They're a really well defined mythical species that is still relevant in modern culture, like dragons. It makes sense to consider them their own specific species instead of a hybrid, because just about anyone in the world with an interest in fantasy would be able to agree on what a centaur looks like. They don't need to be called human/horse hybrids because they've been defined as their own species in fantasy literature and mythology for decades, if not centuries, and the vast majority of internet users could probably tell you that a centaur is half human, half horse.

So why can't we give every hybrid race its own name and species tag, like gryphons and manticores? Because furries. We have wolf/dragon/hippo/hyena hybrids that the species owner calls Gurgleflops. How many people know about this species? like 10. Anyone outside of this person's friends/fans wouldn't know what the hell to call this thing aside from a strange hybrid. At least this guy was nice enough to provide a species name! Many furry hybrids don't get even that. Species like that should stay hybrids, because what else do we call them? Not enough people would know the species name to be able to find them, or blacklist them. They might toss off searches sometimes since searching wolf might get you a few gurgleflops now, but that's easily rectified by a -hybrid tag in the search.

Ok, then where do we draw the line? It has to be a fuzzy line by necessity, but I think the best way to do it is by popularity. If you google image search a species name and the first page is full of mostly this species we're looking for, then they can get tagged as such. If not, then it stays a hybrid alligator/canary/tuna or whatever it is.

It's an extremely well-known species identification (like since ancient Greece), and as such I'm for having centaur be a stand-alone tag as well. Don't think the hybrid implication is needed.

Do think taur should implicate for hybrid though, as what species make it up would need individually defined.

Halite said:
If we stop tagging human hybrids as human, then shouldn't we stop tagging all parts of all hybrids?

As I said - I think that because this is a furry site humans should be treated differently. Either that or make anthro imply human which IMO would create a mess.

Halite said:
Should centaurs still be tagged as equine if we can't tag them with human?
They're at least as human as they are equine.

Besides the things I've said before human is used as a name of certain species (Homo Sapiens), equine is group of different species that look similar to horse.

Halite said:
If we stop tagging human hybrids as human, then shouldn't we stop tagging all parts of all hybrids?
Should centaurs still be tagged as equine if we can't tag them with human?
They're at least as human as they are equine.

Tagging centaurs as human equine hybrid is consistent with the tagging of other hybrids, sure. But:
A) Centaurs have been around (and fairly well known) for long enough that they're really their own thing
B) It's bad for usability. There is a picture on this site of a human caressing the cheek of a female centaur. Try to find it without going through every damn female centaur image on the site. For the sake of argument assume that I don't remember if the centaur is wearing any clothes (so I'm not sure what the rating is).
It would be nice if searching for centaur human returned images with centaurs and humans. It would also be nice if, when I'm looking for humans, I didn't get random centaurs in the results, though given the relative paucity of centaurs it's not a major problem.

(I think that there is only one such image, but just in case there is more than one, the md5 of the post id number is 160A4CBE9073658EB91A86D8817CBD42)

All of those are nice points, but the whole reason this has been brought back up is because this is a valid example of tagging the human part of a human hybrid.
The idea was to try to get rid of this so I wouldn't have as good of an argument against turning cat_ears into a species tag.

So the real question isn't how centaurs are maybe different from other human hybrids, because if we remove the implication then someone will immediately take that as proof that all human hybrids shouldn't have the human tag.
If that's the decision, then so be it, but that begs a few other questions.
Namely, how do we justify not tagging human in a human hybrid, but tagging the parts of other hybrid species?
To avoid overly complicated sets of rules exceptions we should either be tagging the parts of hybrids, or not.
Saying "tag the parts of hybrids, unless it's a human hybrid, then tag the non-human parts, but don't tag the human parts" is absurd as a rule when compared to "Tag the parts of hybrids".

People follow simple rules more frequently, because they're easier to follow.

Halite said:

good things

Agree fully. We aren't out to make the perfect search combination, we're out to make a predictable tagging system. People are going to tag them with human because that is what they see.

I personally think that we should also tag taurs with an anthro upper body as anthro and that centaur should imply feral, but I don't think anybody here would go for that.

@Halite
You say that other human hybrids are tagged with human tag yet you failed to provide any example of this.
Mermaids are not tagged as human.
Minotaurs are not tagged as human.
Anthros are not tagged as human.
Animal_ears does not imply human, and there are about 10,000 posts when searching for animal_ears -human

Granberia said:
@Halite
You say that other human hybrids are tagged with human tag yet you failed to provide any example of this.
Mermaids are not tagged as human.
Minotaurs are not tagged as human.
Anthros are not tagged as human.
Animal_ears does not imply human, and there are about 10,000 posts when searching for animal_ears -human

A lack of tags and a lack of implication doesn't mean it's a bad tag.
It means no one has tagged it, or suggested an implication, nothing more.

Here's some examples for you:
https://e621.net/post/index/1/human%20hybrid

Halite said:
Here's some examples for you:
https://e621.net/post/index/1/human%20hybrid

human hybrid solo -centaur for a better idea.

Halite said:
A lack of tags and a lack of implication doesn't mean it's a bad tag.
It means no one has tagged it, or suggested an implication, nothing more.

Here's some examples for you:
https://e621.net/post/index/1/human%20hybrid[/quote]

About 300 examples which includes animal_ears (compare to 10,000 not tagged with human), and human with a jaguar mask. Nope it doesn't look like mistagged pictures at all.
Sorry, my penis numbers are way bigger then yours. If you want to change how things are tagged then I can't stop you from suggesting things, but I doesn't change the fact that human hybrids (other than centaurs) are not tagged with human tag. Both in theory and in practice. There is no other source of that rule than you.

And one more thing.

Saying "tag the parts of hybrids, unless it's a human hybrid, then tag the non-human parts, but don't tag the human parts" is absurd as a rule when compared to "Tag the parts of hybrids".

Why are you still ignoring my question about anthros? We basically do that rule to anthros - we tag only other animal parts, not human part. Should we tag all anthros as humans?

Granberia said:
About 300 examples which includes animal_ears (compare to 10,000 not tagged with human), and human with a jaguar mask. Nope it doesn't look like mistagged pictures at all.
Sorry, my penis numbers are way bigger then yours. If you want to change how things are tagged then I can't stop you from suggesting things, but I doesn't change the fact that human hybrids (other than centaurs) are not tagged with human tag. Both in theory and in practice. There is no other source of that rule than you.

And one more thing.

Why are you still ignoring my question about anthros? We basically do that rule to anthros - we tag only other animal parts, not human part. Should we tag all anthros as humans?

We do tag the human parts of anthros.
https://e621.net/post/index/1/human_penis

Aside from that, the definition of "hybrid" as used here doesn't include typical anthro type furries.

As for the lack of human tags on "animal_ears", of course it's low, there's people actively removing the tags.

Oh, and that's not a mask.

So, yeah. I'm just going to jump in here for a moment. What if the upper half of the centaur is an elf? Would it still have the human tag? Same goes for other humanoids, such as demons. We shoud also consider the possibility of zombie centaurs. I'm not joking, here, BTW.

Halite said:
We do tag the human parts of anthros.
https://e621.net/post/index/1/human_penis

You know well that I'm asking about adding human tag, are you trolling at this point?

Aside from that, the definition of "hybrid" as used here doesn't include typical anthro type furries.

As for the lack of human tags on "animal_ears", of course it's low, there's people actively removing the tags.

Oh, and that's not a mask.

[citation needed]
Oh, I checked wikipedia before posting last one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guin_Saga

The story centres around a mysterious warrior named Guin, an amnesiac with a leopard mask magically affixed to his head.

It is a mask.

EDIT:

So, yeah. I'm just going to jump in here for a moment. What if the upper half of the centaur is an elf? Would it still have the human tag? Same goes for other humanoids, such as demons. We shoud also consider the possibility of zombie centaurs. I'm not joking, here, BTW.

By current definition centaur with upper part other than human is not centaur. Probably elftaur or something. This definition is not consistent at all with how, for example, mermaid is used.
At least that's what implication suggests, and Halite said in this thread 5 months ago.

https://e621.net/forum/show/51537

That's the ruling we've been operating under since then.
Now, as I said, if we want to just throw that out, then so be it.
But the rule should either be "Tag the parts of hybrids" or "Don't tag the parts of hybrids".

Either that or there needs to be a definition change in what qualifies as a "hybrid".

As for trolling, I gave just as serious an answer as your question deserved.
You know full well that anthro doesn't fit the definition of hybrid on this website, that's why I ignored the point in the first place.

JoeX said:
Something more relevant than me right now.

Others have already responded to your post, so I won't get into that.

However, I have got to say that you have the absolute perfect avatar for this discussion.

parasprite said:
I have got to say that you [JoeX] have the absolute perfect avatar for this discussion.

I think he picked it for the occasion :P

EsalRider said:
I think he picked it for the occasion :P

Nah. I picked it because someone else stole my other avatar and I didn't want to have the same one. I saw this one and thought it was interesting. Also, searching Google for "nonhuman centaur" brings up nothing but porn. All Literotica results, to boot. So, thanks, Google?

JoeX said:
Nah. I picked it because someone else stole my other avatar and I didn't want to have the same one. I saw this one and thought it was interesting.

That's as good a reason as any :) </off>

Also, searching Google for "nonhuman centaur" brings up nothing but porn. All Literotica results, to boot. So, thanks, Google?

That's enough Internet for today...

Hey everybody, I have a completely crazy idea:

• Human: Fully human and ambiguously human (human-looking but the elf-ears are inside a helmet, generic human silhouette, etc.). The way real intended.
• Humanoid: All human hybrids and what we currently use for humanoid (elves, etc.)
• Make humanoid a species tag
• Imply centaur -> humanoid
• Imply animal_ears -> humanoid
• Imply elf/halfling/whatever else -> humanoid
• Imply human -> humanoid
• possibly human -> humanoid -> mammal, but that's probably better for another discussion.
• Change human_on_anthro, human_on_feral, etc. to humanoid_on_anthro, humanoid_on_feral, etc.

Want humans only? Use human.

Want non-human humanoids only? Use humanoid -human

Benefits:

• It follows our current system enough that retagging is minimized.
• Particularly for humanoid_on_* because we would only add to those rather than removing
• It's simple, straightforward, and probably intuitive.
• We now have a humanoid_on_feral/etc. tag.
• We have a way to distinguish centaurs from humans.
• We now have a way to include animal_ears within some of our framework.

Thoughts:

• centaur would be considered non-feral
• centaur on feral would have to be considered bestiality because humanoid_on_feral would.
• This might include naga/etc. I don't actually know enough about them to judge this myself.

parasprite said:

Imply centaur -> humanoid

In my interpretation, humanoid doesn't go along with a taur body shape.

EsalRider said:
-.- That was useful...

It lets you know if you found the right one. It's not supposed to help you find it. Is it a pain in the ass to find? That's exactly the point.

parasprite said:
Hey everybody, I have a completely crazy idea:

• Human: Fully human and ambiguously human (human-looking but the elf-ears are inside a helmet, generic human silhouette, etc.). The way real intended.
• Humanoid: All human hybrids and what we currently use for humanoid (elves, etc.)

I don't think that centaurs are really humanoid, but it is much more usable. I support this.

parasprite said:
Hey everybody, I have a completely crazy idea:

That doesn't seem crazy. I think we're getting closer to figuring this out, those suggestions might work.

EsalRider said:
In my interpretation, humanoid doesn't go along with a taur body shape.

Yeah, it might make the humanoid tag too broad.
Here's a crazy idea of my own: since there's so many human hybrids, maybe we could add a new tag for them?

TVTropes calls them half-human hybrids. What if we tagged species such as centaurs and mermaids as hybrid_human (or something similar)? That could be implicated to hybrid, without having to tag them as either human or humanoid.

parasprite said:

Thoughts:

• centaur would be considered non-feral
• centaur on feral would have to be considered bestiality because humanoid_on_feral would.
• This might include naga/etc. I don't actually know enough about them to judge this myself.

I concur. Centaur on feral horse should definitely be considered bestiality.