Topic: [REJECTED] Lapras Taur

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

aaronfranke

Member

The bulk update request #8187 has been rejected.

create implication lapras_taur (5) -> lapras (1755)
create implication lapras_taur (5) -> taur (18709)

Reason: A Lapras Taur is both a Lapras and a Taur by definition.

EDIT: The bulk update request #8187 (forum #405640) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

Updated by auto moderator

Manitka

Member

manitka said:
Do we really need a separate tag just for Lapras taurs? Just curious as I don’t usually look at taur art so I don’t know how they usually get tagged

Just feels like Pokemon_taur lapras would work just fine, but that’s just me

Also congrats on 666 posts lol

Oops my edit fucked up

Watsit

Privileged

Yeah, I don't think we need tags for each individual pokemon being a taur. Would be better to alias it to lapras.

Strikerman

Janitor

Technically, it's not wrong to have separate tags for the Pokemon taurs. They're all separate species, and we already have similar tags for other fictional species (just mostly they're from mythology and not games). It would be excessive, yes, but it can't be that much more excessive than the flood of taur tags we already have.

Watsit

Privileged

I'd prefer aliasing to lapras, in case someone tags just lapras_taur it'd be better to ensure lapras gets tagged rather than pokemon_taur. It's also matches the first word, so someone trying to tag lapras won't get a lapras_taur -> pokemon_taur autocomplete result (not so much of a problem currently with lapras since it has many more uses than pokemon_taur, but that may not be the case for other pokemon or if pokemon_taur increases in count).

Manitka

Member

strikerman said:
Technically, it's not wrong to have separate tags for the Pokemon taurs. They're all separate species, and we already have similar tags for other fictional species (just mostly they're from mythology and not games). It would be excessive, yes, but it can't be that much more excessive than the flood of taur tags we already have.

That’s true, but I feel like having a taur tag for each would be bordering on insane, there’s what 1000+ Pokemon right now, so if I got up tomorrow and decided I needed to draw a taur for every single Pokemon species, we would have 1000+ more tags.

I feel like pokemon_taur +species (lapras/arcanine/etc) works just as well, but that’s just my 2 cents

Strikerman

Janitor

manitka said:
That’s true, but I feel like having a taur tag for each would be bordering on insane, there’s what 1000+ Pokemon right now, so if I got up tomorrow and decided I needed to draw a taur for every single Pokemon species, we would have 1000+ more tags.

I feel like pokemon_taur +species (lapras/arcanine/etc) works just as well, but that’s just my 2 cents

if you could draw a staryu taur or a shellder taur, you deserve the tag

What makes the Pokemon different from, say, mammal_taur + species? Our current setup is all the individual tags, and not all the mammals being merged into that tag.

Manitka

Member

strikerman said:
if you could draw a staryu taur or a shellder taur, you deserve the tag

What makes the Pokemon different from, say, mammal_taur + species? Our current setup is all the individual tags, and not all the mammals being merged into that tag.

https://ibb.co/wLrP45r

Ask and you shall receive

That is true, it just feels like craziness not only having all the regular species + taurs, as well as Pokemon + taurs

Strikerman

Janitor

manitka said:
https://ibb.co/wLrP45r

Ask and you shall receive

post #1994261

manitka said:
That is true, it just feels like craziness not only having all the regular species + taurs, as well as Pokemon + taurs

Tbh our current system already feels crazy with taur variants for literally every species, so to me it's not that much of a stretch to extend the craziness further. Maybe it's our current system that needs to be changed... 🤔

aaronfranke

Member

Please don't get rid of most *_taur tags. They are quite useful. I can understand the pokemon_taur alias but I don't like it and I don't like the precedent it sets for killing other taur tags.

CoffeeCo

Privileged

aaronfranke said:
Please don't get rid of most *_taur tags. They are quite useful. I can understand the pokemon_taur alias but I don't like it and I don't like the precedent it sets for killing other taur tags.

It shouldn't be removed. There's a huge difference between humanoid taur and humanoid_taur. And better to be kept for blacklisting/searchability.

Updated

SCTH

Member

coffeeco said:
It shouldn't be removed. There's a huge difference between humanoid taur and humanoid_taur. And better to be kept for blacklisting/searchability.

form_taur is fine (since it's a small group), the main issue is the absolutely insane number of species_taur tags. They have equal reason to exist as species_anthro or species_feral, which don't exist for good reason.
species_taur validates other species_form tags, but the other groups have been explicitly stated to be invalid, taur should too.

pleaseletmein

Member

scth said:
form_taur is fine (since it's a small group), the main issue is the absolutely insane number of species_taur tags. They have equal reason to exist as species_anthro or species_feral, which don't exist for good reason.
species_taur validates other species_form tags, but the other groups have been explicitly stated to be invalid, taur should too.

tbf we have species_humanoid tags as well

SCTH

Member

pleaseletmein said:
tbf we have species_humanoid tags as well

Another thing we absolutely should not have.
How did we even end up getting all these tags? It's weird that we've always had such a hard stance against *_anthro tags (not even major ones like mammal_anthro), but then just get all these *_humanoid and *_taur tags.

CoffeeCo

Privileged

scth said:
Another thing we absolutely should not have.
How did we even end up getting all these tags? It's weird that we've always had such a hard stance against *_anthro tags (not even major ones like mammal_anthro), but then just get all these *_humanoid and *_taur tags.

About *_humanoid, I believe it's coz animal humanoids are not seen as furry by some people?
When people search for fox, they're most likely looking for either anthro or feral.

SCTH

Member

coffeeco said:
About *_humanoid, I believe it's coz animal humanoids are not seen as furry by some people?
When people search for fox, they're most likely looking for either anthro or feral.

Most of the larger *_taur and *_humanoid tags imply their respective species tags, which makes that distinction not particularly helpful.
Yes, of course, some utility is gained, when there are multiple characters involved. That's no more true for humanoid and taur than anthro or feral, though.

SNPtheCat

Member

scth said:
Most of the larger *_taur and *_humanoid tags imply their respective species tags, which makes that distinction not particularly helpful.
Yes, of course, some utility is gained, when there are multiple characters involved. That's no more true for humanoid and taur than anthro or feral, though.

No they don't imply the species, they instead imply the [family/subfamily]_humanoid which then implies the [family/subfamily] tag

Specific species humanoid not counting as that species is exactly why there's [species]_humanoid in the first place

hGJ1cwNfgl

Privileged

This thread reminded me that I made creeper_taur - not a Pokemon, but this thread is making me wonder if I did something wrong by making this tag?

CoffeeCo

Privileged

nimphia said:
This thread reminded me that I made creeper_taur - not a Pokemon, but this thread is making me wonder if I did something wrong by making this tag?

I don't think it was wrong when under the current system, every humanoid can be tagged as species_humanoid.

scth said:
...
Yes, of course, some utility is gained, when there are multiple characters involved. That's no more true for humanoid and taur than anthro or feral, though.

Tbh I'm also not sure if people who want to avoid animal_humanoid are somehow okay to see it when multiple characters are involved. (If you don't wanna see animal_humanoid, then you probably don't wanna see it at all.)

fox_humanoid can be simply fox + animal_humanoid.

fox_taur can be simply fox + taur.

dba afish

Member

nimphia said:
This thread reminded me that I made creeper_taur - not a Pokemon, but this thread is making me wonder if I did something wrong by making this tag?

I think its probably better to treat pokémon and digimon and the like the a special case that they are. using pokemon_humaniod and pokemon_taur is mostly an effort to avoid creating one of each for every feral and anthro mon.

when a property only has up to a handful of unique, otherwise uncategorizeable feral species it's not that big of a deal to have specific *_taur tags for them.

CoffeeCo

Privileged

aaronfranke said:
This is not true, fox + taur is not specific enough. You can have posts with non-taur foxes and non-fox taurs:

post #4621114 post #3866312 post #1583277 post #2206887 post #3303465

Sorry I was wrong. I didn't realize coz when I search for fox taur -fox_taur it showed me these kinds of posts.
post #4728947 post #4506893

But as scth said, the problem of not being specific enough can be said to anthro and feral.
fox feral shows anthro fox with feral like post #4398440

Updated

aaronfranke

Member

coffeeco said:
But as scth said, the problem of not being specific enough can be said to anthro and feral.
fox feral shows anthro fox with feral like post #4398440

Yes, that's a good point. One could argue that there should be species_feral and species_anthro tags. It would be a lot of tags, but it's not a combinatorial explosion, it's just the number of species multiplied by a few body types (a large number scaled up by a small number). Anyway, I'm not here to argue in favor of that. My main point is this next paragraph:

Taur is significantly less common and more noteworthy than anthro or feral. If you argue that species_feral and species_anthro tags should not exist, then that does not automatically exclude species_taur tags. Just like we do not tag other very common things (ex: eyes is invalid, but eyeless is valid), taur is an unusual case so it is more deserving of being tagged. I have not desired tagging my avali posts with "avali_anthro" before because it's the normal common case, but I strongly desired an "avali_taur" tag, and I would be extremely sad and annoyed if avali_taur was taken away from us (along with other taur tags). Similarly, I would not bother tagging "lapras_feral", but it makes a lot of sense to tag "lapras_taur". lapras pokemon_taur also makes sense, and works well enough that it's probably fine, but if we agree that taur types are worth tagging, it feels less precise than "lapras_taur" for no reason other than wanting to have fewer tags.

Taur also has the characteristic of being fundamentally easier to classify. With anthro and feral it can be a sliding scale, with tags like semi-anthro existing for when it's too close to call. However, taur is very easy to classify: Either the character has all of the limbs of the original feral creature plus an anthro torso, or they do not.

  • 1