The tag implication #50503 worgen_with_tail -> worgen has been rejected.

Reason: Worgens with tails are worgens.

EDIT: The tag implication worgen_with_tail -> worgen (forum #362705) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.

Should be an alias, not an implication. There's no need to have a separate tag for the same species with a minor anatomical deviation from canon. charr_with_breasts, pokemon_with_penis, rabbit_with_pawpads, etc.

watsit said:
Should be an alias, not an implication. There's no need to have a separate tag for the same species with a minor anatomical deviation from canon. charr_with_breasts, pokemon_with_penis, rabbit_with_pawpads, etc.

Someone was angry that there are people who draw Wrogen with a tail, that person's been banned now, but that seems to be enough of a taboo body modification to need to be blacklistable.

How does one mass update worgen_with_tail to the tail tag before aliasing it to Worgen?

wolfmanfur said:
How does one mass update worgen_with_tail to the tail tag before aliasing it to Worgen?

I don't think there's any convenient way to do this other than going through the results for worgen_with_tail -tail and adding the tail tag (which I just did)

watsit said:
There's no need to have a separate tag for the same species with a minor anatomical deviation from canon. charr_with_breasts [..].

Just to highlight tag usage, charr with humanoid breasts would be anthrofied^{but then so would this neck shape}
The wiki for its arguable opposite tag—furrification—currently claims it's only for things that were not_furry,^{I tend to argue that anthro/furry is not a binary state but a variable scale} but could applying it to tailed worgen potentially satisfy blacklisting needs?
_{Though as far as rabbit pawpads go, I sure know people don't like being told their preferred anatomy on a given species is wrong}

magnuseffect said:
Just to highlight tag usage, charr with humanoid breasts would be anthrofied^{but then so would this neck shape}
The wiki for its arguable opposite tag—furrification—currently claims it's only for things that were not_furry,^{I tend to argue that anthro/furry is not a binary state but a variable scale} but could applying it to tailed worgen potentially satisfy blacklisting needs?
_{Though as far as rabbit pawpads go, I sure know people don't like being told their preferred anatomy on a given species is wrong}

No, simply because you can't furrify something that's already furry. I think worgen tail (since tail is now a valid tag) should be sufficient for searching/blacklisting this tag. Add solo if you want to be certain that the tail belongs to the worgen and not some second character.

scaliespe said:
No, simply because you can't furrify something that's already furry.

Anthrofied can be applied to a character that's already anthro, if they're depicted in a way that's "more anthro" (i.e. noticeably more human-like, but still anthro and not humanoid). When you have a character that normally looks like this (which is anthro) being depicted like this (much more human-looking, but still undeniably anthro), the anthrofied tag can apply. However, I wouldn't say the mere addition of a tail or breasts would, on its own, be sufficient for the tag, it would need more changes to anatomy and proportions to be clearly more human-like from their default look.

scaliespe said:
No, simply because you can't furrify something that's already furry. I think worgen tail (since tail is now a valid tag) should be sufficient for searching/blacklisting this tag. Add solo if you want to be certain that the tail belongs to the worgen and not some second character.

I've been working on it, I was searching the website with worgen tail -solo and added tailless to all posts with a worgen that didn't have a tail to help searching.

It's not as convoluted as removing panther as a tag and expect people to find panther posts. You simply cannot search melanistic pantherine and find what you're looking for. At least, in this scenario, adding tailless to all worgen posts where the worgen has no tail will suffice.

wolfmanfur said:
I've been working on it, I was searching the website with worgen tail -solo and added tailless to all posts with a worgen that didn't have a tail to help searching.

It's not as convoluted as removing panther as a tag and expect people to find panther posts. You simply cannot search melanistic pantherine and find what you're looking for. At least, in this scenario, adding tailless to all worgen posts where the worgen has no tail will suffice.

... worgen naturally don't have tails, tailless' wiki states to not use it on species that normally don't have a tail. this common leap of logic is why people have argued to Blizz for a tail option for worgen, and now Blizz can't even say "it's hard to do" because the vulpera have tails... but i digress, worgen normally don't have tails.

siral_exan said:
... worgen naturally don't have tails, tailless' wiki states to not use it on species that normally don't have a tail. this common leap of logic is why people have argued to Blizz for a tail option for worgen, and now Blizz can't even say "it's hard to do" because the vulpera have tails... but i digress, worgen normally don't have tails.

Maybe it could be worded better. Of course, everyone expects humans to not have tails so this tag shouldn't be tagged, but when we're talking about animal species, specially fictional ones, it feels too much like TWYK.

Worgen has a tail? Worgen + tail
Worgen has no tail? Worgen + tailless if the tail area is visible. or simply just worgen without the tail tag if neither a tail nor the tail area are visible, allowing for searching worgen -tail

Maybe the wiki could say something like: "Not to be tagged for humanoids"

siral_exan said:
... worgen naturally don't have tails, tailless' wiki states to not use it on species that normally don't have a tail. this common leap of logic is why people have argued to Blizz for a tail option for worgen, and now Blizz can't even say "it's hard to do" because the vulpera have tails... but i digress, worgen normally don't have tails.

Worgen are canonically expected not to have a tail, but it is impossible to search otherwise. The point of the description on the wiki is that humans and humanoids shouldn't be given the tag because they never are depicted with a tail meanwhile worgens are, and often are, depicted with a tail.

I havr only added the tag to non-solo posts, solo posts featuring only a worgen are either tagged tail or not, I don't see the point in adding tailless to these specifically, it is needed on duo, trio and group posts though, otherwise it is impossible to search or blacklist.

m3g4p0n1 said:
Maybe it could be worded better. Of course, everyone expects humans to not have tails so this tag shouldn't be tagged, but when we're talking about animal species, specially fictional ones, it feels too much like TWYK.

Worgen has a tail? Worgen + tail
Worgen has no tail? Worgen + tailless if the tail area is visible. or simply just worgen without the tail tag if neither a tail nor the tail area are visible, allowing for searching worgen -tail

Maybe the wiki could say something like: "Not to be tagged for humanoids"

that could definitely be worth a new forum thread, and it might also be worth formulating a tag for when a normally tailless species has a tail (with the exception of humans, obviously, since e6 strictly defines them as with no deviations).

wolfmanfur said:
Worgen are expected not to have a tail, but it is impossible to search otherwise. The point of the description on the wiki is that humans and humanoids shouldn't be given the tag because they never are depicted with a tail whereas worgens are, and often are, depicted with a tail.

I havr only added the tag to non-solo posts, solo posts featuring only a worgen are either tagged tail or not, I don't see the point in adding tailless to these specifically, it is needed on duo, trio and group posts though, otherwise it is impossible to search.

it doesn't matter whether or not we have the tags for something, you shouldn't take previously-established tags and use them how you see fit for the sake of searchability. rather than adding tailless to posts depicting worgen, you could have made a set for them and a forum thread to discuss whether or not we should change the tag's definition.

m3g4p0n1 said:
Of course, everyone expects humans to not have tails so this tag shouldn't be tagged, but when we're talking about animal species, specially fictional ones, it feels too much like TWYK.

It's just as much TWYK for real non-human animals as it is for fictional species. Whether it's real-life anatomy or fictional canon, you have to know a character/species should have a tail but doesn't, for the tag to apply. There might be an argument here if worgen were treated as (were)wolves for tagging purposes as wolves do normally have a tail, so a depiction of wolves without one would be "tailless" regardless of them being called Worgen in some series' canon. But current precedent with other fictional species based on real ones doesn't consider them to be that real species (even if some semi-recent aliases have started to break this precedent).

siral_exan said:
it doesn't matter whether or not we have the tags for something, you shouldn't take previously-established tags and use them how you see fit for the sake of searchability. rather than adding tailless to posts depicting worgen, you could have made a set for them and a forum thread to discuss whether or not we should change the tag's definition.

Only in the canon the wiki's rule would apply, canon that artists may or may not follow. Most worgens I have seen here have a tail to begin with, I repeat MOST. That seems to go in line with the tag's description:

Important: For this to be a working tag it should only be applied to characters whose species normally has a tail. E.g. a human without a tail would not be tailless, while a dog without a tail would be tailless.

In this circumstance, worgens are a tailed species and can have the tag, unlike humans.

wolfmanfur said:
Only in the canon the wiki applies, canon that artists may or may not follow. Most worgens I have seen here have a tail to begin with MOST. That seems to go in line with the tag's description:
In this circumstance, worgens are a tailed species and can have the tag.

how people choose to depict a species doesn't dictate how a tag gets used either. you thought you knew that worgen were a normally tailed species but they aren't. tailless specifically states "... species which normally has a tail", worgen normally don't have tails. people putting tails on worgen are doing the same thing as people removing tails from wolves, it is merely a deviation as how the artist saw fit. if we instead change it to family tags, canid or canines instead of species, then worgen, commonly depicted as werecanines, would get tagged tailless since canines normally have tails...

*edit* it seems Watsit and i are in agreement that the issue is it calls for species instead of something less specific. a wide variety of species, both fictional or otherwise, evolved or lolrandom'd to have or lack certain features their family might otherwise (not) have, and Warcraft is especially heinous in this. for the sake of making a point and it isn't relevant to this argument, the first worgen weren't actually werewolves; they're actually night elves who got cursed because of using a forbidden form that costed them their sanity... this is but one of the many things Blizz has done that'll cause e6 a huge headache.

siral_exan said:
how people choose to depict a species doesn't dictate how a tag gets used either. you thought you knew that worgen were a normally tailed species but they aren't. tailless specifically states "... species which normally has a tail", worgen normally don't have tails. people putting tails on worgen are doing the same thing as people removing tails from wolves, it is merely a deviation as how the artist saw fit. if we instead change it to family tags, canid or canines instead of species, then worgen, commonly depicted as werecanines, would get tagged tailless since canines normally have tails...

I will add that this is written not as an official guideline, but rather as a rule of thumb to avoid making the tag completely useless.
"For this to be a working tag..."

And as Watsit said, it is TWYK. this wiki description is against the core principles of e6.

wolfmanfur said:
I will add that this is written not as an official guideline, but rather as a rule of thumb to avoid making the tag completely useless.
"For this to be a working tag..."

And as Watsit said, it is TWYK. this wiki description is against the core principles of e6.

then suggest an alteration, instead of commandeering it for a "better purpose" that goes against the current definition. suggest the changes first, then wait for the changes to be accepted or agreed upon or et cetera, and then tag it to the better definition; choosing to just treat your unspoken definition of the tag as correct and acting upon it only serves to cause headaches, the tag's wiki page contradicts the edits you made, even if it goes against e6's tagging system. you don't just get to arbitrate how the tags work, there's a procedure to this for the sake of transparency, so people can see what actions were taken and either add their own opinion to it, agree with it, disagree with it, or learn from it to prevent mistakes from happening.

wolfmanfur said:
And as Watsit said, it is TWYK.

What I said was it's TWYK regardless. You have to know a given species (be it fictional or real, human/humanoid, etc) doesn't have a tail normally to know whether the tag applies. If you try to strip out the TWYK element, you have to tag tailless whenever anyone doesn't have a tail regardless of species, and regardless if they should have a tail or not.

Exposed_breasts and other exposed_* tags fall under the same idea, where you have to know a given outfit should (but isn't) covering a character's breasts or other body parts, rather than being for when breasts or a given body part is simply visible/exposed, or no_underwear where you have to know a character should be wearing underwear with their given outfit, but isn't, rather than a character simply having no underwear.

siral_exan said:
then suggest an alteration, instead of commandeering it for a "better purpose" that goes against the current definition. suggest the changes first, then wait for the changes to be accepted or agreed upon or et cetera, and then tag it to the better definition; choosing to just treat your unspoken definition of the tag as correct and acting upon it only serves to cause headaches, the tag's wiki page contradicts the edits you made, even if it goes against e6's tagging system. you don't just get to arbitrate how the tags work, there's a procedure to this for the sake of transparency, so people can see what actions were taken and either add their own opinion to it, agree with it, disagree with it, or learn from it to prevent mistakes from happening.

The "current definition" is not a guideline, but a rule of thumb. Compare this page to anthro, anthro does have a concrete guideline on how to use it.
Tailless' own wiki page reads in a nutshell: "um you can add tailless to anything you want, but avoid giving it to species that are naturally born without a tail."
I am not commandeering it for a "better purpose", I used the tag for what it was and how I understood it.

wolfmanfur said:
The "current definition" is not a guideline, but a rule of thumb. Compare this page to anthro, anthro does have a concrete guideline on how to use it.
Tailless' own wiki page reads in a nutshell: "um you can add tailless to anything you want, but avoid giving it to species that are naturally born without a tail."
I am not commandeering it for a "better purpose", I used the tag for what it was and how I understood it.

you added it to a species that normally doesn't have a tail. what artists choose to depict a worgen with has literally no bearing on what they normally have, Blizzard set their own anatomy for their fictional species and the artists can choose to follow it or not.

siral_exan said:
you added it to a species that normally doesn't have a tail. what artists choose to depict a worgen with has literally no bearing on what they normally have, Blizzard set their own anatomy for their fictional species and the artists can choose to follow it or not.

I don't think you understand my point. The wiki for the tag suggests that adding it recklessly to everything (particularly humans) downplay its value, this is what was written. If it said something along the lines of:

Only use it for characters belonging to any species that normally have a tail, but are missing it. Example: From severed_tail

then I would have been more receptive and wouldn't have bothered it.
To reiterate, the way this wiki article is written reads more like a rule of thumb, for example this would be a rule of thumb:

A character usually has red fur if the color code of the fur is between #ff6600 and #ff0066.

This is not a guideline and it does say "usually", so in some circumstances there can be a character with fur matching the criteria not be red_fur (ambiant occlusion, lighting, etc). Now, I made up this example, but that is to exemplify how I understood the wiki page for tailless. It is not a guideline, it doesn't serve as a guideline and pretty much any post added to it that features a character with a missing tail would be fair game.

But whatever, this is all dumb anyway, none of that'll ever go anywhere. Can we plese get back to the actual topic intended for the thread? I wouldn't even have made the first comment that started this bullshit if I knew you'd have reacted this way.

I'm gonna back up m3g4p0n1 proposal for the tag and leave it at that, I hope.

I don't get it, worgen with tail is allowed to exist and worgen should always apply to them, but the implication isn't valid?

romanicyte2 said:
I don't get it, worgen with tail is allowed to exist and worgen should always apply to them, but the implication isn't valid?

We're saying worgen with tail shouldn't exist. The tag should be aliased to worgen so it's removed from posts, making sure the post is still properly tagged with worgen, and can't be used again.

romanicyte2 said:
I don't get it, worgen with tail is allowed to exist and worgen should always apply to them, but the implication isn't valid?

We don't make new tags for small physiological differences in any given species. Kitsune is aliased to fox, for instance.

If you wanna search for a worgen with taul then worgen tail should do.

The bulk update request #4604 has been rejected.

create alias worgen_with_tail (0) -> worgen (7647)

Reason: per above posts

EDIT: The bulk update request #4604 (forum #363460) has been rejected by @faucet.

Oops, duplicate BUR - see topic #38125

See topic #38125

The bulk update request #4604 (forum #363460) has been rejected by @faucet.

The tag implication worgen_with_tail -> worgen (forum #362705) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.