Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions
The bulk update request #5218 is pending approval.
create implication nitoma (7) -> alien (90446)
create implication nitoma (7) -> humanoid (523252)
create implication nitoma (7) -> alien_humanoid (18211)
create implication nitoma (7) -> tree_humanoid (88)
Reason: Nitoma's are aliens and they are humanoids. And they look like trees or have tree-like aesthetics
We don't usually implicate species -> form, since a species can always be drawn in a different form. (Edit: apparently we occasionally do, at least for humanoid).
The images on the site also don't have many tree-like features, though there I might just be missing something.
Also, both alien_humanoid and tree_humanoid already have humanoid in their implication chains.
Honestly, the implication chain for tree_humanoid is kind of odd. tree_humanoid -> plant_humanoid (fine) -> elemental_humanoid (no wiki?) -> humanoid (obv) and elemental_creature (from the name I'd consider that to be something entirely made of an 'element', but that's definitely not what the wiki says).
Updated
scth said:
We don't usually implicate species -> form, since a species can always be drawn in a different form. (Edit: apparently we occasionally do, at least for humanoid).
We probably shouldn’t, at all. This has caused trouble recently due to na'vi implying alien humanoid. They are humanoid in canon, but they push the boundary towards anthro felid - and, unsurprisingly, many artists have drawn them as full-blown anthros as a result, invalidating the humanoid tag that gets forced on via implication. Species can’t really ever imply forms due to these sorts of artistic decisions that artists are liable to make.
post #3760652 post #3796420 post #3954042
bonus: taur na'vi!
post #3955499
scaliespe said:
We probably shouldn’t, at all. This has caused trouble recently due to na'vi implying alien humanoid. They are humanoid in canon, but they push the boundary towards anthro felid - and, unsurprisingly, many artists have drawn them as full-blown anthros as a result, invalidating the humanoid tag that gets forced on via implication. Species can’t really ever imply forms due to these sorts of artistic decisions that artists are liable to make.
post #3760652 post #3796420 post #3954042bonus: taur na'vi!
post #3955499
except this species is made by a artist who primarily draws it in the way depicted. I don't see anyone deciding to use this artist's species that is from his own creation/story or whatever he's doing and deciding "hmm, I'm gonna NOT make them look like how the original artist depicted them to be"...I feel like there is a difference between canon alien material and species created by artists. From a species created by artist perspective, you usually stay close to the source material.
That's besides the point. This isn't some adoptable species. It's being drawn soley by the artist themself. I don't see its form changing anytime soon and the design has been consistent.
Even the art that isn't uploaded here, yet, has been consistent.
scth said:
We don't usually implicate species -> form, since a species can always be drawn in a different form. (Edit: apparently we occasionally do, at least for humanoid).
The images on the site also don't have many tree-like features, though there I might just be missing something.
Also, both alien_humanoid and tree_humanoid already have humanoid in their implication chains.
Honestly, the implication chain for tree_humanoid is kind of odd. tree_humanoid -> plant_humanoid (fine) -> elemental_humanoid (no wiki?) -> humanoid (obv) and elemental_creature (from the name I'd consider that to be something entirely made of an 'element', but that's definitely not what the wiki says).
they kinda look like Skyrim's Spriggins to me. And they have this leaf like hair on them, some of the art has pubes that look like bushes.
In some images or a certain character, their forarms looks like branches. you are missing something there.
