Topic: Should mabel_tanaka have the robot tag?

I don't think Mabel Tanaka should have the robot tag if they don't show any mechanical parts. I've seen 4 post so far where the main character just looks like a regular plain old organic beaver. No screws, no wires, no joints, no sparks, not even glowing eyes. Nothing about these images would indicate that this beaver is a robot in any way.

e621 is pretty clear with it's rule that you should tag what you see and not what you know. Perhaps a robot_(lore) tag would be needed. I tried making one myself, but only admins can make new lore tags.

Shouldn't be tagged a robot if it doesn't look anything like one iirc. This is often applied to FNaF animatronic characters - people will draw them with no animatronic traits and thus will not add the robot tag tree onto the post.
post #5735841

If Mabel doesn't look like a robot, then you can treat it similarly to a case of alternate species and leave robot off.

moonlit-comet said:
Shouldn't be tagged a robot if it doesn't look anything like one iirc. This is often applied to FNaF animatronic characters - people will draw them with no animatronic traits and thus will not add the robot tag tree onto the post.
post #5735841

clawstripe said:
If Mabel doesn't look like a robot, then you can treat it similarly to a case of alternate species and leave robot off.

Thanks for the feedback. I bring this up because (at the time) all 4 of mabel_tanaka posts had the robot and machine tags, despite none of them looking like robots. I just wanted to nip this in the bud before it get out of hand.