Topic: Questioning the terms used to define the creatures

e621 made a lot of mistakes in categorizing creatures.

In reality, characters categorized as "anthro" should be categorized as "humanoid" (since their main characteristic is a body similar to that of a human).

The exact definition of anthropomorphism: "Anthropomorphism consists of attributing human behavioral or morphological characteristics to other entities such as gods, animals, objects, phenomena, ideas, or even beings from another world, if applicable".

Therefore, an anthropomorphic being is not necessarily humanoid; because human characteristics such as expressions, behavior, and language are sufficient to qualify a creature as anthropomorphic. Therefore, it could be a "Feral" too.

Moreover, even the term "Feral" is poorly chosen. In reality, it should be "Theriomorph."

And yes, I went to look it up.

Moreover, what people generally call "Furry" should be called "Therianthrop", and this should include humanoid beasts as well as theriomorphs, but also creatures like centaurs, mermaids, etc.

Furthermore, the term "furry" simply means "having fur." ​​This remains vague (the term doesn't imply any human characteristics) and poorly classifies creatures, as some of them have neither fur nor hair, like the Scalies.

Therefore, the term Therianthrope is preferable.

Therion = Beast, and Anthro(p) = Human.

"Furry" is a poor term.

As for Theriomorph, it means "having the form of a beast."

While the term "Anthropomorph" implies human characteristics but not necessarily a humanoid form, the term "Theriomorph" is the opposite, as it doesn't necessarily imply the characteristics of a beast. It primarily refers to the "bestial" form of the creature (body, head, legs).

Therefore, "theriomorph" is the appropriate term, unlike "Feral", which (incorrectly) removes any anthropomorphic connotation from the creature.

Furthermore, since theriomorphs (which you mistakenly call "Ferals") are partly anthropomorphic (as they can possess human characteristics), their sexual relations with humans or humanoids should not be categorized "bestiality." Because of their human characteristics, they should be considered equal to humans, despite their bestial form.

Imagine a creature that moves by crawling or walking on all fours, but is capable of speaking and/or thinking like a human. Logically, it should not be considered a beast if it can speak and think like us. Not to mention that theriomorphs sometimes also exhibit behaviors and gestures similar to those of humans.

Finally, those you call "Anthro" should be tagged: Anthro & Humanoid.

And those you call "Feral" should have the tags: Anthro & Theriomorph.

One last detail:

Humans tend to use the term "animal" to refer to other species, yet it is scientifically proven that humans are also animals.

Therefore, the term we should use to differentiate non-human animal species is "beast."

This is why I believe the term "zoo" should mean "animal" (including humans), and the term "therion" should mean "beast." Just to make a distinction.

Most of the furry fandom understands the usage of the slang terms anthro and feral. You'd probably get more confusion trying to implement "theriomorph" over calling a quadrupedal cartoon dog a feral, and sapience doesn't really come into play for TWYS purposes regarding feral/non-feral relations.

I myself usually call four-legged animal characters quads, but feral is what most people call them. From what I remember the tagging system on this site is supposed to be a combination of "technical correctness" and "ease of understanding". Sometimes this will mean implementing technically incorrect but well-understood slang terms as tags, instead of technically correct but poorly understood terms.

in the case of feral: people know what "feral" means, it's bordering on entirely ubiquitous at this point. it's simple, it's easy to remember, it's great. no one's gonna know what therimorph means, there were other terms before "feral" like "nonmorphic" and they didn't stick like feral did because they just don't hit right. "feral" has character, it evokes an image.

it's a bit unfortunate that there's some situations where it'd be nice to use "feral" to mean something akin to "wild", like it's used in normal english, but feral isn't going anywhere.

So you use absurd and confusing words, and that's okay with you?

Furthermore, I don't see how the term "theriomorph" is any more vague than "feral"; on the contrary, "feral" can mean anything, since a human can be feral themselves. Let's not forget that humans once lived in a wild state.

However, "theriomorph" clearly means "having the form of a beast." This corresponds much better to what we are trying to define. A canid, a feline, a cetacean, a bird, even an extraterrestrial species… although, fundamentally, I consider any anthropomorphic creature with a bestial appearance (humanoid or theriomorph) to be an extraterrestrial creature, given that I believe neither in magic nor in the supernatural. I believe only in science, and not in magical or supernatural/mystical creatures.

As for saying "blah blah blah, we're used to it," well, let me tell you: change your habits.

Using the terms you employ to describe these creatures doesn't make sense.

dfn-451 said:
in the case of feral: people know what "feral" means, it's bordering on entirely ubiquitous at this point. it's simple, it's easy to remember, it's great. no one's gonna know what therimorph means, there were other terms before "feral" like "nonmorphic" and they didn't stick like feral did because they just don't hit right. "feral" has character, it evokes an image.

it's a bit unfortunate that there's some situations where it'd be nice to use "feral" to mean something akin to "wild", like it's used in normal english, but feral isn't going anywhere.

Well, by constantly using the word "theriomorph," people will associate it with a creature that has the body of an beast. After all, that's what the word means.
It's just a matter of habit.

And that doesn't change the fact that you're mistakenly considering theriomorphs as beasts, when in fact they are anthropomorphic, therefore similar to humans and not to ordinary beasts.

You're just blindly following trends, without thinking, instead of following logic.

camolyn said:
You're just blindly following trends, without thinking, instead of following logic.

"You're wrong I'm right" isn't a great way to discuss how you think terms used for decades should be replaced with terms the majority of people here have never heard of

camolyn said:
So you use absurd and confusing words, and that's okay with you?

Furthermore, I don't see how the term "theriomorph" is any more vague than "feral"; on the contrary, "feral" can mean anything, since a human can be feral themselves. Let's not forget that humans once lived in a wild state.

However, "theriomorph" clearly means "having the form of a beast." This corresponds much better to what we are trying to define. A canid, a feline, a cetacean, a bird, even an extraterrestrial species… although, fundamentally, I consider any anthropomorphic creature with a bestial appearance (humanoid or theriomorph) to be an extraterrestrial creature, given that I believe neither in magic nor in the supernatural. I believe only in science, and not in magical or supernatural/mystical creatures.

As for saying "blah blah blah, we're used to it," well, let me tell you: change your habits.

Using the terms you employ to describe these creatures doesn't make sense.

it's just got no personality, dude, no sauce. I don't know what to tell you. "feral" feels like a word that could be used in and out of universe. therimorph just feels manufactured*, no one would use it willingly.

*I know we did that with gynomorph and andromorph, but that's a much different case.

donovan_dmc said:
"You're wrong I'm right" isn't a great way to discuss how you think terms used for decades should be replaced with terms the majority of people here have never heard of

On the contrary, the words I use are older than yours.
Yours probably date back to the 80s, no earlier.

Do you really think people used terms like "Feral" or "Furry" before that? Certainly not.

dfn-451 said:
it's just got no personality, dude, no sauce. I don't know what to tell you. "feral" feels like a word that could be used in and out of universe. therimorph just feels manufactured*, no one would use it willingly.

*I know we did that with gynomorph and andromorph, but that's a much different case.

No, it's mainly that "Feral" and "Theriomorph" are two words that have nothing to do with each other.

And no, Theriomorph can also be used in and out of the universe. You are acting in bad faith.

Furthermore, you dismiss the terms I use, as if I invented them, without any logic whatsoever.

But no, go look them up online (Google is your friend); these words exist, and my usage perfectly matches their definition and etymology.

It is you who are making the mistake of associating beast form with what is "feral".

It is indeed the mistake of all humans to think that for a creature to be considered their equal, it must have the same form (a humanoid form).

I tell you that's not the case. From the moment a creature has expressions, behaviors, and gestures similar to those of humans, and also possesses verbal language, then we can consider it the equivalent of a human. And that is what theriomorphs represent, at least when they are anthropomorphized (and I am referring specifically to their characteristics). Therefore, categorizing sexual relations between these creatures and humans and humanoids like "bestiality" makes no sense.

After all, a creature could very well be humanoid without possessing human capabilities. Werewolves are perhaps an example of this, since they are generally depicted as aggressive and murderous. Therefore, worse than ordinary beasts. Yet they are sometimes depicted as bipedal and with a body very close to that of humans.

camolyn said:
On the contrary, the words I use are older than yours.

so, they're deprecated?

my dude, you're literally appealing to tradition and complaining about other people acting like they're appealing to tradition.

camolyn said:
It is you who are making the mistake of associating beast form with what is "feral".

it's not "our" "mistake" it's just how the word is used. it's the word people use because it's the word people use, deal with it.

get outta here with this fuckin' prescriptivist bullshit.

camolyn said:
On the contrary, the words I use are older than yours.
Yours probably date back to the 80s, no earlier.

Do you really think people used terms like "Feral" or "Furry" before that? Certainly not.

Language and slang evolves over time. "Gay" certainly isn't used for what it used to be for anymore.

We are not going to neuter body-type searches just to satisfy your ego.

But because of this website, all "feral" enthusiasts will be labeled zoophiles. Which they aren't, literally, since these "ferals" (as you call them) are partly anthropomorphic.

They aren't really beasts, since a beast doesn't have the same facial expressions as a human (although it depends on the species), but above all, they don't exhibit human behavior and don't speak, whereas that's precisely what "ferals" do.

lafcadio said:
We are not going to neuter body-type searches just to satisfy your ego.

It has nothing to do with my ego, it's just a matter of common sense.

moonlit-comet said:
Language and slang evolves over time. "Gay" certainly isn't used for what it used to be for anymore.

Certainly, but the word "gay" is not associated with something that might seem pejorative, unlike "feral".

I have never in my life heard the word "theriomorph" before I came across this forum post. "Therianthrope" already has an established meaning that has nothing to do with anthropomorphic animals. What made you think either of those words would be more useful than the terminology that has been established for decades and even normies are familiar with? Are you high?

camolyn said:
But because of this website, all "feral" enthusiasts will be labeled zoophiles.

mate, that's gonna happen regardless. us not using "feral" to refer to ferals isn't going to make all the weird puritanical types suddenly want to not call someone "dogfucker" for liking quadruped eeveelutions or something.

camolyn said:
But because of this website, all "feral" enthusiasts will be labeled zoophiles. Which they aren't, literally, since these "ferals" (as you call them) are partly anthropomorphic.

Trying to say this as nicely as I can, no matter what we call these animal-like characters, people who don't like furries will call furries zoophiles. It's been happening for as long as furry as a culture has existed. Outside of e621, on e621, within furry culture itself - it has nothing to do with the term or existence of "feral". Even upright, human-like anthro characters get this label.

It's not something that a simple change in wording will fix, because eventually people will associate that new wording with their negative perceptions of furries and the cycle will start over again. The only way to fix this problem is through systemic change and push for normalization and acceptance of weirdness, not by bending our knees to people who hate us. That's how it goes for any sort of widely-hated group.

Certainly, but the word "gay" is not associated with something that might seem pejorative, unlike "feral".

I mean... it used to be. Gay used to be a homophobic slur that was gradually reclaimed by gay people.

eightoflakes said:
I have never in my life heard the word "theriomorph" before I came across this forum post. "Therianthrope" already has an established meaning that has nothing to do with anthropomorphic animals. What made you think either of those words would be more useful than the terminology that has been established for decades and even normies are familiar with? Are you high?

eightoflakes said:
I have never in my life heard the word "theriomorph" before I came across this forum post. "Therianthrope" already has an established meaning that has nothing to do with anthropomorphic animals. What made you think either of those words would be more useful than the terminology that has been established for decades and even normies are familiar with? Are you high?

As I explained to someone earlier: people haven't been using the terms "Furry" and "Feral" for decades. So stop saying it goes back decades; that's completely false. Again, the words "Theriomorph" and "Therianthrope" are older than "Furry" and "Feral."

And yes, the term Therianthrope does have a connection to anthropomorphic beasts, since, as the etymology indicates, it describes a creature that is a mix between human and beast (which is exactly what you so poorly call "Furry" or "Scalie," etc.).

Moreover, in clinical terms, "Therianthrope" also replaces the term "Lycanthrope," which wasn't a broad enough term to clinically describe patients who believe they are beasts of various species.

And yes, I too didn't know these words before, but I was convinced that "Furry" and "Feral" were ridiculous terms, so I wanted to look for more accurate terms, with a real etymology, and not just a word that comes out of nowhere and that everyone uses as a fad, without thinking.

camolyn said:
Moreover, what people generally call "Furry" should be called "Therianthrop", and this should include humanoid beasts as well as theriomorphs, but also creatures like centaurs, mermaids, etc.

Therianthrope, which is a more generalized form of lycanthrope that applies to any animal (therion) instead of just wolf (lycos). The term also applies to shapeshifters in human or feral forms, not just anthros. In fact, searching wikipedia for "therianthrope" redirects to "shapeshifter". So using the term therianthrope for anthros would be confusing, when the term is more associated with shapeshifters.

camolyn said:
Well, by constantly using the word "theriomorph," people will associate it with a creature that has the body of an beast.

Just like they've done with "anthro", used enough and people associate it with human-like animal people. Yes, technically the term anthropomorphic means a non-human thing being given human qualities, but theriomorph is not free of ambiguity itself. The term is a combination of the greek therion, which means beast, and -morph, which means "in the form of". In this context, theriomorph could equally apply to
post #5996565
anthros like that, rather than ferals. It's as much a theriomorph as a humanoid.

camolyn said:
And that doesn't change the fact that you're mistakenly considering theriomorphs as beasts, when in fact they are anthropomorphic, therefore similar to humans and not to ordinary beasts.

So then "theriomorph" isn't an alternative for feral as you suggested, as ferals don't have to be anthropomorphized in the slightest to be tagged such.

moonlit-comet said:
Trying to say this as nicely as I can, no matter what we call these animal-like characters, people who don't like furries will call furries zoophiles. It's been happening for as long as furry as a culture has existed. Outside of e621, on e621, within furry culture itself - it has nothing to do with the term or existence of "feral". Even upright, human-like anthro characters get this label.

It's not something that a simple change in wording will fix, because eventually people will associate that new wording with their negative perceptions of furries and the cycle will start over again. The only way to fix this problem is through systemic change and push for normalization and acceptance of weirdness, not by bending our knees to people who hate us. That's how it goes for any sort of widely-hated group.

I mean... it used to be. Gay used to be a homophobic slur that was gradually reclaimed by gay people.

Certainly, but as far as "ferals" are concerned, associating sexual relations between "ferals" and "anthropos"/humans by classifying it as "bestiality" isn't going to solve anything. On the contrary, I call it "self-destruction."

But as for people who insult "humanoid beasts" lovers by calling them zoophiles, there's not much we can do; maybe things will change little by little over time.

By the way, I saw that they created a Realdoll of Judy Hopps. It's for sale.

camolyn said:
e621 made a lot of mistakes in categorizing creatures.

In reality, characters categorized as "anthro" should be categorized as "humanoid" (since their main characteristic is a body similar to that of a human).

If you know anything about this site's tagging, youd know thats a terrible idea to lump in anthro with all of the tags that we have for humanoid. Humanoid is also a bad tag imo, if you say you know a lot about this I think you would have noticed that.

camolyn said:
e621 made a lot of mistakes in categorizing creatures.

The exact definition of anthropomorphism: "Anthropomorphism consists of attributing human behavioral or morphological characteristics to other entities such as gods, animals, objects, phenomena, ideas, or even beings from another world, if applicable".

Therefore, an anthropomorphic being is not necessarily humanoid; because human characteristics such as expressions, behavior, and language are sufficient to qualify a creature as anthropomorphic. Therefore, it could be a "Feral" too.

Moreover, even the term "Feral" is poorly chosen. In reality, it should be "Theriomorph."

And yes, I went to look it up.

As for Theriomorph, it means "having the form of a beast."

Therefore, "theriomorph" is the appropriate term, unlike "Feral", which (incorrectly) removes any anthropomorphic connotation from the creature.

The term that anthro derives from doesnt really beget the original in the fandom's use. Though language has a way of evolving and morphing into things, which is kind of to be expected. It's not perfect.

I do share the sentiment (I have before this forum post) that anthropomorphs should be named something better. And e6 has changed or introduced new language before, so introducing a new term would be nice to see.

I also think some of your decisions arent fully thought out, as in they arent conducive to how useful the tagging is. Like especially with how you describe anthro, it needs to be more specific imo, or else it would be too clunky to use or introduce bloat because of how wide ranging "human characteristics" can be.

watsit said:
Therianthrope, which is a more generalized form of lycanthrope, applying to any animal (therion) instead of just wolf (lycos). The term also applies to shapeshifters in human or feral forms, not just anthros. In fact, searching wikipedia for "therianthrope" redirects to "shapeshifter". So using the term therianthrope for anthros would be confusing, when the term is more associated with shapeshifters.

Just like they've done with "anthro", used enough and people associate it with human-like animal people. Yes, technically the term anthropomorphic means a non-human thing being given human qualities, but theriomorph is not free of ambiguity itself. The term is a combination of the greek therion, which means beast, and -morph, which means "in the form of". In this context, theriomorph could equally apply to
post #5996565
anthros like that, rather than ferals. It's as much a theriomorph as a humanoid.

So then "theriomorph" isn't an alternative for feral as you suggested, as ferals don't have to be anthropomorphized in the slightest to be tagged such.

Because "Feral" is more precise, maybe?
Seriously...

I wouldn't go so far as to say Wikipedia is right about everything.

For example, regardless of Wikipedia's association of Therianthrope and Metamorph, I personally distinguish between Therianthrope and Metamorph.

If the word exists, why not use it to differentiate them?

After all, the etymology of Therianthrope clearly means a being with both human and beast attributes. So, it doesn't primarily suggest that it would be capable of metamorphosis.

That's more the characteristic of a metamorphic being.

As for the term Theriomorph, I'm French, and the definition I found is: "having the form of a beast" or "of bestial form."
Therefore, the creature you're showing me in your image isn't a Theriomorph.

But, just like theriomorphs and humanoid beasts (but anthropomorphics), it does belong in the Therianthrope category.

And of course it is, normally what you call "feral" should be anthropomorphized, because if it isn't, then we should just call it a beast.

Strictly speaking, and to be even more precise, the "ferals" should be called anthrotheriomorphs.

The humanoid versions should be called anthrotheriohumanoids.

It's annoying, isn't it? But those are the correct terms.

People aren't going to accept 'Therianthrop' over 'Anthro'.

1. 'Anthro' is easier to spell.
2. 'Anthro' easier to remember. As it's short for 'anthromorph' or 'anthropomorphic'.
3. I would be dollars to donuts that people for whom English is a second or third language have memorized 'anthro' and would not want to memorize 'Therianthrop'.

You're entire argument is 'These words are more accurate, so who cares if they're less used? Change the English language & everyone who uses it to make me happy!'

Languages change. You will notice people don't say 'Ye' (Now we say 'You), 'Breaking my fast' (It got shortened to 'Breakfast'), 'afeared' (We say 'afraid' now).

Just because a word is more accurate does not mean it should be shoved down everyone's throats.
And telling the entire site to adopt YOUR personal views on vernacular is incredibly self-centered.

camolyn said:
As I explained to someone earlier: people haven't been using the terms "Furry" and "Feral" for decades. So stop saying it goes back decades; that's completely false.

Actually, the term 'furry' emerged in the early 80's, originating from a science fiction convention discussion about anthropomorphic characters in 1980. So it's been around for 4 decades.
'Furry fandom' began appearing in 1983.
And 'furry' itself was first used in a modern context in 1986, at the Westercon convention.

So yes; It has been around for decades. Actually longer than the internet!

fuzzy_kobold said:
People aren't going to accept 'Therianthrop' over 'Anthro'.

1. 'Anthro' is easier to spell.
2. 'Anthro' easier to remember. As it's short for 'anthromorph' or 'anthropomorphic'.
3. I would be dollars to donuts that people for whom English is a second or third language have memorized 'anthro' and would not want to memorize 'Therianthrop'.

You're entire argument is 'These words are more accurate, so who cares if they're less used? Change the English language & everyone who uses it to make me happy!'

Languages change. You will notice people don't say 'Ye' (Now we say 'You), 'Breaking my fast' (It got shortened to 'Breakfast'), 'afeared' (We say 'afraid' now).

Just because a word is more accurate does not mean it should be shoved down everyone's throats.
And telling the entire site to adopt YOUR personal views on vernacular is incredibly self-centered.

Actually, the term 'furry' emerged in the early 80's, originating from a science fiction convention discussion about anthropomorphic characters in 1980. So it's been around for 4 decades.
'Furry fandom' began appearing in 1983.
And 'furry' itself was first used in a modern context in 1986, at the Westercon convention.

So yes; It has been around for decades. Actually longer than the internet!

It seems you haven't quite grasped the point.

The difference isn't between therianthrope and anthropomorph, but between anthropomorph and humanoid*.

Because a creature can be anthropomorphic without being humanoid (like many "ferals," for example).

And yes, I know the term "furry" has existed since the 1980s; I did a little research to verify it.

But that doesn't change the fact that the words I'm using are even older, so we can assume they've been in use for much longer than "furry."

I have the impression that "furry" is primarily a term to be taken with a grain of salt.

camolyn said:
It seems you haven't quite grasped the point.

The difference isn't between therianthrope and anthropomorph, but between anthropomorph and humanoid*.

Because a creature can be anthropomorphic without being humanoid (like many "ferals," for example).

And yes, I know the term "furry" has existed since the 1980s; I did a little research to verify it.

But that doesn't change the fact that the words I'm using are even older, so we can assume they've been in use for much longer than "furry."

I have the impression that "furry" is primarily a term to be taken with a grain of salt.

You're still demanding, or asking, the website & all it's users to change their vernacular to make you happy.

Literally no one other than you has said 'Man! I wish we called humanoid animals therianthropes!'

Language changes. It has evolved to the point that casual usage marks bipedal/humanoid animals as 'anthros' and quadruped as 'quadruped' or 'feral'.
People aren't going to change it all just to appease your need for accuracy.

And, I mean, let's extend this to OTHER bits of the English language:
Why don't we stop calling the livingroom that and go back to 'parlour' or 'great hall'?
We can use 'First light' instead of 'sunrise'?
I mean, 'awful' used to mean 'inspires awe' instead of 'bad'.
'Silly' used to mean 'blessed' or 'fortunate'.
And hey! 'Girl' used to mean a young person of either sex!

Language changes.

camolyn said:
As I explained to someone earlier: people haven't been using the terms "Furry" and "Feral" for decades. So stop saying it goes back decades; that's completely false.

my dude, it's 2025, I'm pretty sure "feral" has been used to refer to the form at least since 2005, "furry" certainly has... so, yeah, decades".

the earliest reference to the term feral being synonymous to "non-anthropomorphic" on Wikifur was from september of 2006 [link], so that's 10 months off from decades, at a maximum...

on FA the first image tagged feral was from july of 2005 [link].

yeah, "decades" seems about right, even if it might be pretty close to the wire.

Normally, each species should have its own name, but given that they are represented in a thousand different ways, that seems impossible, especially since it depends on the artists' choices.

In any case, the most appropriate terms seem to be Anthrotheriomorph and Anthrotheriohumanoid.

Anthrotheriomorph:
-Anthro = human (characteristics)
-Theriomorph = bestial form (physical appearance).

Anthrotheriohumanoid:
-Anthro = human
-Therio = Beast (partial appearance)
-Humanoid = human form/human body.

We would also need a term like "anthropotherio semi-humanoid" to designate an anthropomorphic beast exhibiting slight human traits, such as digitigrades and unguligrades partially humanoids.

camolyn said:
Normally, each species should have its own name, but given that they are represented in a thousand different ways, that seems impossible, especially since it depends on the artists' choices.

In any case, the most appropriate terms seem to be Anthrotheriomorph and Anthrotheriohumanoid.

Anthrotheriomorph:
-Anthro = human (characteristics)
-Theriomorph = bestial form (physical appearance).

Anthrotheriohumanoid:
-Anthro = human
-Therio = Beast (partial appearance)
-Humanoid = human form/human body.

We would also need a term like "anthropotherio semi-humanoid" to designate an anthropomorphic beast exhibiting slight human traits, such as digitigrades and unguligrades partially humanoids.

Nobody's ever gonna use any of those, man. They'd make good fantasy classifiers for worldbuilders though.

camolyn said:
Normally, each species should have its own name, but given that they are represented in a thousand different ways, that seems impossible, especially since it depends on the artists' choices.

In any case, the most appropriate terms seem to be Anthrotheriomorph and Anthrotheriohumanoid.

Anthrotheriomorph:
-Anthro = human (characteristics)
-Theriomorph = bestial form (physical appearance).

Anthrotheriohumanoid:
-Anthro = human
-Therio = Beast (partial appearance)
-Humanoid = human form/human body.

We would also need a term like "anthropotherio semi-humanoid" to designate an anthropomorphic beast exhibiting slight human traits, such as digitigrades and unguligrades partially humanoids.

I'd like you to take note that by this time tomorrow we will have 6 million total posts, there are not enough dedicated users or narrowly defined scripts in the world to do anything more than rename tags directly

Tags with more than a million posts also really shouldn't be touched at all, they are more or less set in stone for the rest of time due to how monstorously difficult any transition would be

No really, look into the dismantling of the video games tag, it was a mess and took actual sysadmins to get anything moving due to the sheer size of the tag, and that was only 1 million
Even dismantling cub which had somewhere in the neighborhood of 100k posts took an immense amount of time
anthro is 4 times the size video games was, at nearly 4 million posts

Those new name suggestions are also awful to look at, parse, and search with

fuzzy_kobold said:
You're still demanding, or asking, the website & all it's users to change their vernacular to make you happy.

Literally no one other than you has said 'Man! I wish we called humanoid animals therianthropes!'

Language changes. It has evolved to the point that casual usage marks bipedal/humanoid animals as 'anthros' and quadruped as 'quadruped' or 'feral'.

Again, a therianthrope isn't necessarily humanoid.

And favoring the term "anthropomorphic" when talking about humanoids is absurd.

Otherwise, it's like saying a Feral isn't anthropomorphic?

Yet most of them are, whether you like it or not. It's obvious, either because they speak, or because they adopt a seductive air, or because the females are just as sexually active as humans.
It's even visible in their eyes, the fact that they smile...
Most beasts don't have these characteristics.
So a "Feral" isn't really a beast. Agreed?

Look at the creature in my profile picture. Have you ever seen a canine-like creature look at someone like that, and hold an ice cream like that?

If you see those as the characteristics of an beast, and not human (anthropomorphism), then I can't help you.

camolyn said:
Again, a therianthrope isn't necessarily humanoid.

And favoring the term "anthropomorphic" when talking about humanoids is absurd.

Otherwise, it's like saying a Feral isn't anthropomorphic?

Yet most of them are, whether you like it or not. It's obvious, either because they speak, or because they adopt a seductive air, or because the females are just as sexually active as humans.
It's even visible in their eyes, the fact that they smile...
Most beasts don't have these characteristics.
So a "Feral" isn't really a beast. Agreed?

Look at the creature in my profile picture. Have you ever seen a canine-like creature look at someone like that, and hold an ice cream like that?

If you see those as the characteristics of an beast, and not human (i.e., anthropomorphism), then I can't help you.

My man, stop applying real world ideas to fictional pixels on a screen
None of the definitions we use strictly match real world definitions, that's just how it has to work for various reasons, from language changing as has been mentioned to in some cases no word existing for the idea

If you want strict real world definitions, go look at some other easier to tackle tags that aren't you trying to upend the entire Fandom because you don't like how words are used

donovan_dmc said:
My man, stop applying real world ideas to fictional pixels on a screen
None of the definitions we use strictly match real world definitions, that's just how it has to work for various reasons, from language changing as has been mentioned to in some cases no word existing for the idea

If you want strict real world definitions, go look at some other easier to tackle tags that aren't you trying to upend the entire Fandom because you don't like how words are used

Who claims you know what's real? Have you ever observed the species that exist on other planets? We don't know everything; it's foolish to limit ourselves to just what we know on Earth.

moonlit-comet said:
Nobody's ever gonna use any of those, man. They'd make good fantasy classifiers for worldbuilders though.

Because the creatures in e621 aren't fantastic, perhaps?

And once again, we all agree that the term "fantasy" encompasses both the mystical and science fiction.

After all, there are creatures classified as "alien," some of which are also described as "Feral." Yet, we cannot definitively say that they are not anthropomorphic, given that, "a priori," they do not exist.

But it is not impossible that they might be.

It's like certain creatures classified as "monsters."

Some are classified as such, but they aren't particularly ugly or grotesque; some closely resemble more or less well-known beasts (like dragons, among others). Hence the fact that a monster isn't necessarily ugly or grotesque.

So, what defines them as monsters? They could just as easily be aliens; we wouldn't see the difference.

I'm convinced you're smooth sharking us at this point.

camolyn said:
It has nothing to do with my ego, it's just a matter of common sense.

This sense of yours is so uncommon that:

• out of 8 unique accounts replying to you, none share your viewpoint.
• theriomorph appears in:
• 0 blips
• 0 comments
• 0 post changes
• 0 post descriptions
• 15 forum posts, all of which are part of this thread.
• 0 wikis
• therion's wiki points to one species in particular, and links to a Wikifur disambiguation page that mentions FurryJack and LEVEL 5's Jeanne d'Arc.
• therion has been removed from posts a grand total of four times, with two of them being from 8 years ago, once 14 years ago, and once 16 years ago.

I don't even need to tackle the other suggestions (like calling feral characters anthro) to know that you're basically a solipsist.

camolyn said:
Normally, each species should have its own name, but given that they are represented in a thousand different ways, that seems impossible, especially since it depends on the artists' choices.

In any case, the most appropriate terms seem to be Anthrotheriomorph and Anthrotheriohumanoid.

Anthrotheriomorph:
-Anthro = human (characteristics)
-Theriomorph = bestial form (physical appearance).

Anthrotheriohumanoid:
-Anthro = human
-Therio = Beast (partial appearance)
-Humanoid = human form/human body.

We would also need a term like "anthropotherio semi-humanoid" to designate an anthropomorphic beast exhibiting slight human traits, such as digitigrades and unguligrades partially humanoids.

I've come up with some pretty silly words before and even I know "anthrotheriohumanoid" is going to get you laughed out of the room. 0 instances of both of these words on Google, by the way. The adoption for these is going to be nonexistent.

I also noticed that on Rule34, some "Ferals" also had the "Anthro" tag. In that respect, I agree with them.
Unfortunately, it's still rare on this site. But that's precisely what we should be doing.

lafcadio said:
I've come up with some pretty silly words before and even I know "anthrotheriohumanoid" is going to get you laughed out of the room. 0 instances of both of these words on Google, by the way. The adoption for these is going to be nonexistent.

So what? You're the one who said "language change."

Well, there you have it.
Besides, etymologically these terms are valid.

camolyn said:
I also noticed that on Rule34, some "Ferals" also had the "Anthro" tag. In that respect, I agree with them. Proof that I'm not the only one who thinks that a "feral" is also an "anthro".
Unfortunately, it's still rare on this site. But that's precisely what we should be doing.

camolyn said:
So what? You're the one who said "language change."

Well, there you have it.
Besides, etymologically these terms are valid.

@Fuzzy Kobold
I'm you, apparently.

camolyn said:
Who claims you know what's real? Have you ever observed the species that exist on other planets? We don't know everything; it's foolish to limit ourselves to just what we know on Earth.

what the fuck are you talking about? what does the possibility of extraterrestrial life have to do with cartoon animals?

camolyn said:
Besides, etymologically these terms are valid.

this is a nonsense sentence. etymology just describes the origin of a word, there's no such thing as "etymological validity".

dfn-451 said:
what the fuck are you talking about? what does the possibility of extraterrestrial life have to do with cartoon animals?

The very fact that you use the term "animal" as if humans weren't animals clearly shows you're using a floppy disk full of normie vocabulary and that you don't even think about the words you should be using.

Furthermore, "Feral" creatures aren't always beasts, since some have human characteristics (hence, anthropomorphic). And given the ambiguity (considering that on Earth, beasts don't have human characteristics, or so not totally), I prefer to consider anthropomorphic beasts as extraterrestrials rather than mystical creatures. That's most credible.

lafcadio said:
@Fuzzy Kobold
I'm you, apparently.

I misspoke; I meant in a general sense.

But I imagine you share that opinion?

camolyn said:
The very fact that you use the term "animal" as if humans weren't animals clearly shows you're using a floppy disk full of normie vocabulary and that you don't even think about the words you should be using.

where did I exclude humans from the category "cartoon animals"?

dfn-451 said:
this is a nonsense sentence. etymology just describes the origin of a word, there's no such thing as "etymological validity".

Of course it did, since that's how words originally developed.

dfn-451 said:
where did I exclude humans from the category "cartoon animals"?

Granted, you didn't do it. But given the topic we're discussing, it wouldn't surprise me if you were thinking about it anyway.

dfn-451 said:
what the fuck are you talking about? what does the possibility of extraterrestrial life have to do with cartoon animals?

I therefore see a link with extraterrestrial life because, on another planet, it is highly possible that life could form and develop in the same way as on Earth.

Furthermore, there is no proof that a quadruped creature doesn't exist that speaks and thinks like a human (Hey "Ferals" from e621).

Even if, given its morphology, it might not produce as many creations as a human, or perhaps none at all. But I don't think that the capacity to create is entirely linked to the capabilities of the human brain.

For example, we don't necessarily need to know how to create objects to be able to name the elements of our environment. The same applies to forming even just tribes, and inventing rules or laws.

lafcadio said:
@Fuzzy Kobold
I'm you, apparently.

My condolences. Rofl.

camolyn said:
Normally, each species should have its own name, but given that they are represented in a thousand different ways, that seems impossible, especially since it depends on the artists' choices.

In any case, the most appropriate terms seem to be Anthrotheriomorph and Anthrotheriohumanoid.

Anthrotheriomorph:
-Anthro = human (characteristics)
-Theriomorph = bestial form (physical appearance).

Anthrotheriohumanoid:
-Anthro = human
-Therio = Beast (partial appearance)
-Humanoid = human form/human body.

We would also need a term like "anthropotherio semi-humanoid" to designate an anthropomorphic beast exhibiting slight human traits, such as digitigrades and unguligrades partially humanoids.

Abso-fucking-lutely NO ONE is going to want to use 'anthropotherio semi-humanoid'.

No one wants these inane changes except you.
And no one is going to ENJOY these changes except you.

camolyn said:
Of course it did, since that's how words originally developed.

what makes a word valid, etymologically? what about words that are made up from scratch like "scurry" might be? are those words etymologically valid.

this is all just more prescriptivist hooey. you're trying to put language in a box with preordained "right"s and "wrong"s. you don't put language in a box.

the only "wrong" way to speak is not being understood. which is what using these words you got from whatever dusty, old book you found them in would do.

camolyn said:
Granted, you didn't do it. But given the topic we're discussing, it wouldn't surprise me if you were thinking about it anyway.

you clearly have no idea who I am.

fuzzy_kobold said:
My condolences. Rofl.

Abso-fucking-lutely NO ONE is going to want to use 'anthropotherio semi-humanoid'.

No one wants these inane changes except you.
And no one is going to ENJOY these changes except you.

Admittedly, it's a long name, I regret that.

But why "insane"?

After all, I'm using the original words to create new ones. That's not insane, on the contrary, it respects the origin of the terms.

What's insane is wanting to assign words that aren't evocative enough, like "Furry" and "Feral."

dfn-451 said:
what makes a word valid, etymologically? what about words that are made up from scratch like "scurry" might be? are those words etymologically valid.

this is all just more prescriptivist hooey. you're trying to put language in a box with preordained "right"s and "wrong"s. you don't put language in a box.

the only "wrong" way to speak is not being understood. which is what using these words you got from whatever dusty, old book you found them in would do.

you clearly have no idea who I am.

Inventing new words is fine, why not?
After all, I didn't criticize the fact that the alien race in Predator is called Yautja.

However, I disagree with the Alien franchise. The term Xenomorph, meaning "alien form," could refer to anything. I don't understand why they chose that name for the E.T in that franchise.

But here you're taking existing words and reducing them to vague, imprecise things.

camolyn said:
Admittedly, it's a long name, I regret that.

But why "insane"?

After all, I'm using the original words to create new ones. That's not insane, on the contrary, it respects the origin of the terms.

What's insane is wanting to assign words that aren't evocative enough, like "Furry" and "Feral."

I said 'inane', not 'insane'.

Inane:
in·ane
/iˈnān/
adjective
adjective: inane

silly; stupid.
"don't constantly badger people with inane questions"

fuzzy_kobold said:
I said 'inane', not 'insane'.

Inane:
in·ane
/iˈnān/
adjective
adjective: inane

silly; stupid.
"don't constantly badger people with inane questions"

Certainly, but that doesn't change the fact that your words don't have as much meaning as mine.

I'm not changing the most commonly used, well understood (even outside e621) term for something for no reason other than ????.

People know what the word means, its intuitive, unambiguous (enough), and it's established. Common sense is literally what the tag is now, not using something unheard of and obscure with no real gain or reason.