The bulk update request #7276 is pending approval.

remove implication fox_(minecraft) (261) -> minecraft (5548)
remove implication bee_(minecraft) (193) -> minecraft (5548)
remove implication spider_(minecraft) (53) -> minecraft (5548)
remove implication wolf_(minecraft) (308) -> minecraft (5548)
create alias squid_(minecraft) (46) -> decapodiform (2077)
create alias sheep_(minecraft) (81) -> sheep (34707)
create alias llama_(minecraft) (25) -> llama (1892)
create alias polar_bear_(minecraft) (13) -> polar_bear (17354)
create alias chicken_(minecraft) (21) -> chicken (16024)
create alias horse_(minecraft) (40) -> horse (206305)
create alias axolotl_(minecraft) (29) -> axolotl (2705)

Reason: Working on a Minecraft BUR, but before I do that... Why do these exist? Do we really need duplicates of real world species but "they're in Minecraft"? minecraft fox works just fine.

Part 2:

alias fox_(minecraft) -> fox
alias bee_(minecraft) -> bee
alias spider_(minecraft) -> spider
alias wolf_(minecraft) -> wolf

There are more of these but they can just be manually cleaned up. But these ones I think should be aliased away to stop people from using them.

I dunno... these mobs have very specific designs, I think that's worth tagging

cloudpie said:
I dunno... these mobs have very specific designs, I think that's worth tagging

Except a lot of the time they seem to be tagged just because the artist says so, and they're otherwise indistinguishable from the normal animal. Searching (or blacklisting) <species>+minecraft would be more effective.

watsit said:
Except a lot of the time they seem to be tagged just because the artist says so, and they're otherwise indistinguishable from the normal animal. Searching (or blacklisting) <species>+minecraft would be more effective.

It feels wrong to not tag the obvious exceptions with the Minecraft tags, though.

post #4539449 post #3961004 post #4047047 post #3799265

minecraft fox gets plenty of false positives.

Honestly I'm not so sure what's best. The Minecraft tags are a complete clusterfuck. Posts like https://e621.net/posts/4573659 don't have the bee_(Minecraft) tag, but at the same time Minecraft has specific designs and they are very unique. Some posts have Minecraft animals without the tags, but they're using the very specific Minecraft designs. I think the best thing would be to manually tag every image with the proper designs, but short of that getting rid of the minecraft specific race tags for things like sheep would be fine.

strikerman said:
It feels wrong to not tag the obvious exceptions with the Minecraft tags, though.

post #4539449 post #3961004 post #4047047 post #3799265

minecraft fox gets plenty of false positives.

See, on one hand I understand this, but also I feel like these tags are going to attract random "I said so" tags regardless rather than just being used on the blocky in-game mob designs.

nimphia said:
See, on one hand I understand this, but also I feel like these tags are going to attract random "I said so" tags regardless rather than just being used on the blocky in-game mob designs.

If we were deleting tags as a precaution in case somebody uses it wrong, we may as well just delete the whole of e621.

I think it's reasonably clear when the tags should be used:

sheep minecraft:
post #3824579

sheep_(minecraft):
post #3473640

faucet said:

sheep minecraft:
post #3824579

This example is also tagged with sheep_(minecraft), incidentally. Even though it's quite literally someone's OC...

The bulk update request #7277 is pending approval.

create implication fox_(minecraft) (261) -> fox (384424)
create implication bee_(minecraft) (193) -> bee (8142)
create implication wolf_(minecraft) (308) -> wolf (332570)
create implication spider_(minecraft) (53) -> spider (11113)
create implication squid_(minecraft) (46) -> decapodiform (2077)
create implication sheep_(minecraft) (81) -> sheep (34707)
create implication llama_(minecraft) (25) -> llama (1892)
create implication polar_bear_(minecraft) (13) -> polar_bear (17354)
create implication chicken_(minecraft) (21) -> chicken (16024)
create implication horse_(minecraft) (40) -> horse (206305)
create implication axolotl_(minecraft) (29) -> axolotl (2705)

Reason: Alternatively, if we are keeping them, they should at least imply what they are. Same with the other mobs, but this is just proposing the idea so I'm not gonna list all of them at the moment.

I don't feel strongly either way, I'd just like to figure something out since like I mentioned I'm working on a bigger Minecraft BUR.

Just putting my two cents in, but just going off the guidelines...

Tagging Guidelines state:
Tags in the Character and Species categories are partially dependent upon TWYS: that is, external information can be used to help identify what character or species is supposed to be depicted in the post in cases where it isn't obvious, but it cannot actively conflict with what is seen in the post.

using the examples given in previous replies, with knowledge of the game and the e6 post and source info...

---

watsit said:
Except a lot of the time they seem to be tagged just because the artist says so, and they're otherwise indistinguishable from the normal animal.

"Artist" - post #3547865 - An anthro fox wearing a glow squid hoodie. This one is an OC 'Vixy', but is a Minecraft fox, according to the reference sheet from the owner - post #3473038

"says" - post #3603017 - An anthro fox eating 'sweet berries', with the POV character holding the item, implying this is one of the in-game mobs being tamed.

"so" - post #4611741 - An anthro fox and wolf having sex, within a Minecraft environment. Could just be generic anthros, but with it being a follow-up to post #4539449 where the characters are anthrofied, they probably should be tagged with _(minecraft)

---

faucet said:
I think it's reasonably clear when the tags should be used:
sheep minecraft:
post #3824579

In contrast to 'Vixy' from the above comment, the character owner has not stated that 'Chlora' is based off a minecraft sheep, even with multiple posts of them in a minecraft environment.

strikerman said:
This example is also tagged with sheep_(minecraft), incidentally. Even though it's quite literally someone's OC...

It's important to note that another user added the sheep_(minecraft) tag, not the artist

---

Frankly I think the best course of action is to go with the revised BUR, with tagging being dependent on..

• coloration - post #4121218 - as mob colorations are fairly generic
• sequences - post #4611741 - i.e. parent and child posts
• artist notes - post #3473038 - i.e. reference sheets, source descriptions
• gameplay mechanics - post #3603017

... if it's not clearly a minecraft mob (blocky) - post #4652446

nimphia said: since like I mentioned I'm working on a bigger Minecraft BUR.

For the BUR, I should mention they added wolf variants to the game a couple days ago.
I've gone ahead and created tags for those and did a mass update of posts with the OG coloring to add pale_wolf_(minecraft). If we go the alias route, oh well, but if we imply, the work is already done.

I've made a BUR with the full list of variants (which is how I found out about this thread)

dirtyderg said:

Tagging Guidelines state:
Tags in the Character and Species categories are partially dependent upon TWYS: that is, external information can be used to help identify what character or species is supposed to be depicted in the post in cases where it isn't obvious, but it cannot actively conflict with what is seen in the post.

using the examples given in previous replies, with knowledge of the game and the e6 post and source info...

Note that it says partially, and can be, not wholly and always. Unlike characters, species do still need to carry visual consistency. When it comes to species, there should still be distinguishing characteristics that set it apart from other species, and not be just on artist say-so alone (using external information is to help fill in gaps where the distinguishing characteristics aren't reliably visible in all cases). For instance, a lynel can sometimes appear to be a horse or zebra if its distinguishing characteristics are out of frame. A lynel clearly isn't a horse or zebra when you compare them side-by-side, so depictions that make it difficult to impossible to distinguish can lean on external information.

In contrast, a Minecraft wolf is identical to a wolf. Put them side-by-side, and you can't really tell them apart. IMO, a particular color scheme isn't enough to create a new fictional species tag out of, since many characters are distinguished by their colors on a regular species. link_(wolf_form) is still a wolf despite his unique coloration and pattern, for example. I can't just say I made a new species called a "fooxie" that looks like a red fox, and tag it on what I say is a fooxie despite looking just like a red fox. At best a minecraft animal can be distinguished when it's in the blocky style of the game (so a non-blocky animal would be in contradiction to the blocky minecraft species regardless of what the artist/character owner says; same as a fully visible bidoof can't be tagged arceus due to the visual contradiction regardless of what the artist says). But even there I'd argue that's merely a stylistic choice and not unique to minecraft -- other games or settings can have a similar blocky look, and a animals in them would take on a similar appearance.