Topic: robot_anthro BUR

The bulk update request #9400 is pending approval.

create implication robot_anthro (5994) -> robot (86652)
create implication robot_anthro (5994) -> anthro (3973793)
create alias anthro_robot (0) -> robot_anthro (5994)

Reason:

• Being a robot_anthro implies that a character is both a robot and an anthro.
• robot_humanoid is already implied and aliased in this manner so it's only appropriate for this tag to be given the same treatment.

Should
robot_feral
robot_taur
also follow?

Seems like android already kinda covers this, though I suppose that also includes humanoids.
Speaking of which, I wonder why robot_humanoid doesn’t imply android? Perhaps this tag could imply android as well.

spe said:
Seems like android already kinda covers this, though I suppose that also includes humanoids.
Speaking of which, I wonder why robot_humanoid doesn’t imply android? Perhaps this tag could imply android as well.

I think that there is supposed to be a difference between robot_humanoid and android, with the former including stuff like transformers and other bipedal/bibrachial (I guess that's the term for having two arms) robots that are vaguely human-shaped but don't cross the line into being humanlike (or anthrolike) enough to be considered "android".

snpthecat said:
Should
robot_feral
robot_taur
also follow?

Yes.

spe said:
Seems like android already kinda covers this, though I suppose that also includes humanoids.
Speaking of which, I wonder why robot_humanoid doesn’t imply android? Perhaps this tag could imply android as well.

Perhaps, but by doing so would also include vaguely humanoid robots (ex; a metal box with mechanical arms and legs). Perhaps that was the reason.

dba_afish said:
I think that there is supposed to be a difference between robot_humanoid and android, with the former including stuff like transformers and other bipedal/bibrachial (I guess that's the term for having two arms) robots that are vaguely human-shaped but don't cross the line into being humanlike (or anthrolike) enough to be considered "android".

Basically what I was trying to say, yes. Bipedal bibrachial robots; That indeed describe them pretty aptly.

----

With these feedbacks, this begs some questions; Is a robot merely being anthropomorphic (humanoid or anthro), regardless of vagueness, enough to qualify as an android? My assumptions tells me that a robot should also be more life-like in appearance and behavior on top of being anthropomorphic to qualify as an android. Though I must admit, these criterias can be get pretty grey; How much life-like should an anthropomorphic robot be to be considered an android?