The tag implication #58950 animal_head -> animal_humanoid has been approved.

Reason: An animal_head is a humanoid with an animal head, making them inherently a type of animal_humanoid. I guess there could maybe be an edge case of a humanoid taur with an animal head, but animal head already implies humanoid and of the four posts tagged animal_head humanoid_taur, two are taurs with other humanoid animal head characters, post #4424475 looks like some sort of mask to me, and I don't think I'd tag post #3471865 as animal head.

EDIT: The tag implication animal_head -> animal_humanoid (forum #396573) has been approved by @spe.

The bulk update request #7173 is active.

remove implication animal_head (1485) -> humanoid (457104)

Reason: If the above is accepted, then this implication becomes redundant (animal_humanoid implies humanoid already).

EDIT: The bulk update request #7173 (forum #396576) has been approved by @spe.

we probably should just remove this implication. the parent tag, for_a_head, lacks any such implications and this tag could definitely apply to taur characters.

sipothac said:
we probably should just remove this implication. the parent tag, for_a_head, lacks any such implications and this tag could definitely apply to taur characters.

Part of why for_a_head doesn't imply humanoid is because anthros can be object_heads.

post #3527524 post #4379261

Like I said in the initial post, theoretically this could apply to a taur, but I don't see anything I'd tag as both personally right now. I believe the idea of using animal_head_taur for that hypothetical situation was suggested in the last thread on the topic?

nimphia said:
Like I said in the initial post, theoretically this could apply to a taur, but I don't see anything I'd tag as both personally right now. I believe the idea of using animal_head_taur for that hypothetical situation was suggested in the last thread on the topic?

In theory, wouldn't the tag be animal_head_humanoid if we're also implementing the taur variant?

strikerman said:
In theory, wouldn't the tag be animal_head_humanoid if we're also implementing the taur variant?

I'm not opposed to this either, I think it's a lot clearer than the current tag is to be honest

strikerman said:
In theory, wouldn't the tag be animal_head_humanoid if we're also implementing the taur variant?

What would happen with animal_head, then? Given how few images there are of taurs with a humanoid upper body and animal head there are, making animal_head some kind of umbrella would cause it to be largely identical to animal_head_humanoid, and thus be unnecessary. Invalidating or disambiguating it also seems unnecessary for the same reason. Aliasing animal_head to animal_head_humanoid would just make it a semantic difference. If that type of taur was more prevalent, I could see a case for doing something to avoid ambiguity, but as it is, it seems like there wouldn't be a problem with leaving animal_head to be for non-taur humanoids and something like animal_head_taur for the taurs.

The bulk update request #7173 (forum #396576) has been approved by @spe.

The tag implication animal_head -> animal_humanoid (forum #396573) has been approved by @spe.

Is animal_head really within the same sort of characteristics animal_humanoid? Is it just some catch all term for things not fully anthro? If so then kemonomimi or whatever should be a tag too by that logic.

A tag to cover shit like "anthros" with heads shaped like a human or human faces occuring on things like ferals would be good too.

dinbyy said:
A tag to cover shit like "anthros" with heads shaped like a human or human faces occuring on things like ferals would be good too.

humanoid face