The tag alias #80983 bat_wings -> membranous_wings is pending approval.
Reason: <animal>_<anatomy> tags are discouraged, and bat wings are membranous.
Topic: Tag alias: bat_wings -> membranous_wings
Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions
beholding said:
The tag alias #80983 bat_wings -> membranous_wings is pending approval.Reason: <animal>_<anatomy> tags are discouraged, and bat wings are membranous.
Since when? Bat_wings are fairly distinct from your average membranous_wings, see topic #11001 & topic #56117.
thegreatwolfgang said:
Since when? Bat_wings are fairly distinct from your average membranous_wings, see topic #11001 & topic #56117.
How so? Looking at the posts tagged bat_wings, if we ignore the character they're attached to being a bat, I don't see a real difference from the kinds of membranous_wings I often see depicted on dragons. In fact, on the occasion when I see people talk about the different types of dragon wings, they're often distinguished as "bat-like wings" or "bird-like wings" (membranous or feathered, respectively), or sometimes "insect-like wings" for the kind of see-through or translucent insect_wings. But I don't think people would be happy if we went around tagging most dragons' membranous_wings as bat_wings, making them largely synonymous anyway.
watsit said:
How so? Looking at the posts tagged bat_wings, if we ignore the character they're attached to being a bat, I don't see a real difference from the kinds of membranous_wings I often see depicted on dragons. In fact, on the occasion when I see people talk about the different types of dragon wings, they're often distinguished as "bat-like wings" or "bird-like wings" (membranous or feathered, respectively), or sometimes "insect-like wings" for the kind of see-through or translucent insect_wings. But I don't think people would be happy if we went around tagging most dragons' membranous_wings as bat_wings, making them largely synonymous anyway.
Bat_wings being commonly (and accurately) drawn on dragons does not devalue the tag.
What we are looking for is a distinct membranous wing which resembles a hand with elongated fingers (and a thumb) with membrane stretched between them.
What we are not looking for are those wings that are composed with a single membrane throughout, those that do not have a thumb or those who use a claw stub instead, or with those "fake" succubus wings (as in most rouge_the_bat posts).
thegreatwolfgang said:
What we are looking for is a distinct membranous wing which resembles a hand with elongated fingers (and a thumb) with membrane stretched between them.
post #6020229 post #6020205 post #6018987 post #6017550 post #6014327 post #6014242 post #6012056 post #6004446 post #6004185 post #6003100 post #6001789 post #6001272
all on the first row of results for bat_wings rating:s.
thegreatwolfgang said:
What we are not looking for are those wings that are composed with a single membrane throughout, those that do not have a thumb or those who use a claw stub instead, or with those "fake" succubus wings (as in most rouge_the_bat posts).
post #6020552 post #6014565 post #5917316 post #6016245 post #6004131 post #5971215
Whatever distinction there is to be had, people aren't good at recognizing it.
Not to mention odd cases like
post #6014951 post #6000576
Are these extra "fingers" (in the same way non-wyvern dragons have extra "arms"/"hands" for wings from the four usual limbs)? Or
post #6006358 post #5994265
how to tell if they're connected by "fingers" instead of a single membrane throughout?
This level of distinction doesn't seem sustainable, given how often bat_wings are apparently mistagged and missing, and the corner cases where you can't tell one type from the other.
thegreatwolfgang said:
Bat_wings being commonly (and accurately) drawn on dragons does not devalue the tag.What we are looking for is a distinct membranous wing which resembles a hand with elongated fingers (and a thumb) with membrane stretched between them.
What we are not looking for are those wings that are composed with a single membrane throughout, those that do not have a thumb or those who use a claw stub instead, or with those "fake" succubus wings (as in most rouge_the_bat posts).
the tag's current usage clearly does not fit this more strict definition. if we want a tag for accurately rendered wing-fingers, then we should have a tag for that, because currently these two tags are functionally identical.
dba_afish said:
the tag's current usage clearly does not fit this more strict definition. if we want a tag for accurately rendered wing-fingers, then we should have a tag for that, because currently these two tags are functionally identical.
Right, and this is precisely why <animal>_<anatomy> is discouraged, because people end up viewing it as <animal> + <anatomy>, rather than focusing on what makes the anatomy distinct. e.g. we avoid lion_tail or cow_tail because people tend to tag on any lion's tail or cow's tail respectively, and not tag it when a visually identical tail is on a dog or a bird or something, and we instead prefer tagging tail_tuft, which is what makes that type of tail unique and is more universally recognizable on various the species an artist can draw it on, not just lions or cows.
Updated
watsit said:
<sample A>
all on the first row of results for bat_wings rating:s.<sample B>
Whatever distinction there is to be had, people aren't good at recognizing it.
...
This level of distinction doesn't seem sustainable, given how often bat_wings are apparently mistagged and missing, and the corner cases where you can't tell one type from the other.
dba_afish said:
the tag's current usage clearly does not fit this more strict definition. if we want a tag for accurately rendered wing-fingers, then we should have a tag for that, because currently these two tags are functionally identical.
Alright, how do you suggest we separate sample A from sample B? Because sample B is what bat_wings are supposed to be.
I will not take aliasing bat_wings -> membranous_wings as the answer to solving rampant mistagging.
watsit said:
Not to mention odd cases like
post #6014951 post #6000576
Are these extra "fingers" (in the same way non-wyvern dragons have extra "arms"/"hands" for wings from the four usual limbs)? Or
post #6006358 post #5994265
how to tell if they're connected by "fingers" instead of a single membrane throughout?
Everything should be membranous_wings, with the exception of post #6000576 which is a pseudo-bat wing.
watsit said:
Right, and this is precisely why <animal>_<anatomy> is discouraged, because people end up viewing it as <animal> + <anatomy>, rather than focusing on what makes the anatomy distinct.
If that is the logic, then the entirety of animal_<body part> is invalid.
Updated
thegreatwolfgang said:
[...]or with those "fake" succubus wings (as in most rouge_the_bat posts).
also, "'fake' succubus wings" just, like, are bat wings, I dunno what to tell you.
dba_afish said:
also, "'fake' succubus wings" just, like, are bat wings, I dunno what to tell you.
If you believe those look exactly like realistic bat wings, I don't know what to tell you.
thegreatwolfgang said:
Alright, how do you suggest we separate sample A from sample B? Because sample B is what bat_wings are supposed to be.
wing_fingers perhaps? Something like that could also apply more broadly, to be combined with membranous_wings, feathered_wings, etc, and can cover cases like
post #5756473 post #5943688
where you can see the same hand/wing structure that's lacking a membrane.
thegreatwolfgang said:
I will not take aliasing bat_wings -> membranous_wings as the answer to solving rampant mistagging.
Well, bat_wings can't stay with how poorly used and understood it is, and it can't be aliased to whatever "proper" anatomy tag we can come up with given how rampantly mistagged it is, so what can be done? An alias to membranous_wings will result in the fewest mistags both now and whenever someone tries to use it again in the future.
thegreatwolfgang said:
Everything should be membranous_wings, with the exception of post #6000576 which is a pseudo-bat wing.
Sure, but the question is whether they're bat_wings or not. The first two odd cases can be said to "resemble a hand with elongated fingers [..] with membrane stretched between them". If wings can be on extra limbs near the forelimbs like in non-wyvern dragons, can't "bat wings" be on extra fingers near the hand as in those examples? Why does a "thumb" specifically need to be present when the other hand-like digits with connecting membrane are visible?
thegreatwolfgang said:
If that is the logic, then the entirety of animal_<body part> is invalid.
Hence why they're discouraged. There was a time when <animal>_ears and <animal>_tail were intended for animal_humanoids of the given animal, but they're so often mistagged for any depiction of the animal (feral, anthro, taur) that they're just <animal> + <body part> now. And some of the other <animal>_<body part> tags could be traced back to a time when standards for these kinds of tags were much looser, or people don't/didn't have a good idea of what else to call it.
Updated
watsit said:
wing_fingers perhaps? Something like that could also apply more broadly, to be combined with membranous_wings, feathered_wings, etc, and can cover cases like
post #5756473 post #5943688
Wing fingers is also a mess of a tag with inconsistent use, it seems to be used for "feathered wings with "feather fingers"",
post #5387812
Bat inspired dragon wings,
post #5669459
Wings with actual hands on the wing a la pterosaur wings,
post #5625260 post #5682876 post #5107224
and wings that are just fingers.
post #5559028
It has no wiki.
On the original topic, overall I vote for consolidating bat wings and membranous wings. The overall use between them is nearly identical and any actual differences are unfeasible to reasonably discern. Nearly all uses of the tag are on stylized "bat" wings, which usually appear closer to the pop culture "dragon" or "demon" wings rather than those of real bats.
thegreatwolfgang said:
If you believe those look exactly like realistic bat wings, I don't know what to tell you.
I mean, we're talking about cartoon animals, almost everything is going to have some level of abstraction or inaccuracy.
...
and if you're objecting to the second image as well I _really_ have no idea what your criteria is.
watsit said:
wing_fingers perhaps? Something like that could also apply more broadly, to be combined with membranous_wings, feathered_wings, etc, and can cover cases like
post #5756473 post #5943688
where you can see the same hand/wing structure that's lacking a membrane.
It might be useful, especially for undead or wings completely missing any membrane.
However, an issue is that it might be mistaken for wings on fingers (imagine two hand fans) or those giant Lugia hands.
I also feel the example cases above might require a different solution instead (e.g., skeleton_wings).
On another note, wings_instead_of_hands does fit the definition we are looking for, but it still has its own limitations.
Well, bat_wings can't stay with how poorly used and understood it is, and it can't be aliased to whatever "proper" anatomy tag we can come up with given how rampantly mistagged it is, so what can be done? An alias to membranous_wings will result in the fewest mistags both now and whenever someone tries to use it again in the future.
Fixing it is always an option, that's why tag projects is a thing.
It might not be an effective fix in the long run, but it beats completely losing out the functionality of having a distinct tag. No matter how (dys)functional it may seem right now.
Sure, but the question is whether they're bat_wings or not. The first two odd cases can be said to "resemble a hand with elongated fingers [..] with membrane stretched between them". If wings can be on extra limbs near the forelimbs like in non-wyvern dragons, can't "bat wings" be on extra fingers near the hand as in those examples? Does a "thumb" specifically need to be present when the other hand-like digits with connecting membrane are visible?
I feel post #6014951 looks like spikes rather than fingers to me while post #6000576 is a hybrid between winged_arms and bat_wings.
I also feel extra fingers can be a negligible inclusion for bat_wings, as long as it has a distinct thumb and membrane between the fingers.
If the thumb is offscreen, then the remaining digits should resemble a fingers instead of being straight spikes stuck to a pole (e.g., post #5438775).
Moreover, we would also want to exclude pterosaur wings which resemble a large membranous sheet rather than segmented sheets stuck between fingers (e.g., post #5950587).
dba_afish said:
I mean, we're talking about cartoon animals, almost everything is going to have some level of abstraction or inaccuracy....
and if you're objecting to the second image as well I _really_ have no idea what your criteria is.
Good, at least you can see the difference between the two comparison images I just showed you between "fake succubus wings" and actual bat wings.
thegreatwolfgang said:
Good, at least you can see the difference between the two comparison images I just showed you between "fake succubus wings" and actual bat wings.
yeah, but they're both depictions of bat wings. there's just fewer details on one than the other.
thegreatwolfgang said:
Fixing it is always an option, that's why tag projects is a thing.
I think you underestimate the amount of work to do. Look at my first set of examples where just the first row of bat_wings rating:s has an 80% mistag rate. I don't see it getting much better when including all other bat_wings posts. On top of that, you have a significantly large amount missing the tag because they're on dragons and other non-bat creatures, that would need to be looked through. Then you have to make sure it stays clean as people continue tagging it on anything bat-like and not tagging it on non-bats.
thegreatwolfgang said:
It might not be an effective fix in the long run, but it beats completely losing out the functionality of having a distinct tag. No matter how (dys)functional it may seem right now.
What functionality does the tag currently have? If anything, bat_wings may end up worse here since people are more likely to wantonly tag it on bat-like creatures while ignoring the tag for other very popular creatures that often have similar wing styles. Searching membranous_wings may give you more readily visible "bat wings" than searching bat_wings, or at least not much worse.
thegreatwolfgang said:
If the thumb is offscreen, then the remaining digits should resemble a fingers instead of being straight spikes stuck to a pole (e.g., post #5438775).
Then you get into issues of detail and style. You have stuff like this being tagged fingers:
post #6020198 post #6020041
where's the line between "fingers" and "spikes stuck to a pole" when membrane is stretched between them?
thegreatwolfgang said:
Moreover, we would also want to exclude pterosaur wings which resemble a large membranous sheet rather than segmented sheets stuck between fingers (e.g., post #5950587).
Which brings up another issue. It was mentioned before how pterosaur wings are notable for essentially having a membrane from their long outstretched pinky to their body, unlike bat wings where the membrane covers the whole hand/between all the fingers. So what about cases where there's membrane between only some fingers and not all?
post #5879995 post #5917316 post #2552808 (the anthro for the last example)
would these be bat wings or pterosaur wings? Ignoring the character species since this is fiction, there's nothing to say a bat can't be drawn with pterosaur wings, or a pterosaur with bat wings.
This is probably worth taking reference of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patagium
the membrane in between digits on a limb such as in bats is called a "Dactylopatagium" while the membrane that is most commonly associated with peterodactyls does get called a "Brachiopatagium".
While certainly a mouthful we do have similar tags for the some various configurations of toes already such as zygodactyl..
Also in regards to wings that have both digits supporting a membrane and non-connected digits we already have winged_arms(or the less intuitive wing claws) that can cover many of these.
**In any case being able to have a distinction between finger supported and non-finger supported wing membrane does not justify the existence of "bat wings" , given the specific feature is not unique to bats given the species we tag for on e621.
Updated
Could split winged_arms into membranous_winged_arms and feathered_winged_arms, but if they have normal arms as well, does it become multi-arms, even detailed as full bat wings but from the back?
ryu_deacon said:
This is probably worth taking reference of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patagiumthe membrane in between digits on a limb such as in bats is called a "Dactylopatagium" while the membrane that is most commonly associated with peterodactyls does get called a "Brachiopatagium".
Oddly, according to wikipedia:
Plagiopatagium: the portion found between the last digit and the hindlimbs.
[...]
Brachiopatagium: the main flight surface, stretching from the elongated fourth finger to the hindlimbs.
Isn't that basically the same thing? Having a different term for what's essentially the same structure dependent on the species would be a problem when it's depicted on other species, and neither word would be more valid than the other.
A tag for the plagiopatagium might make sense, but that leaves the question of stuff like this:
post #6004185 post #6003100
which as dba fish points out, are basically just abstract, inaccurate, and/or purposely stylized depictions of bat wings. The lines on the inside of the wing and the points on the outside are meant to be evocative of the "fingers" in bat wings, so would they count as plagiopatagium?
furrin_gok said:
Could split winged_arms into membranous_winged_arms and feathered_winged_arms, but if they have normal arms as well, does it become multi-arms, even detailed as full bat wings but from the back?
I don't think I like that idea. I don't think people would think of stuff like this:
post #5971215 post #6014565
as 4_arms. And would stuff like
post #877288
be considered 6_arms and unusual_arm_placement?
membranous_winged_arms and feathered_winged_arms also seem redundant with winged_arms membranous_wings and winged_arms feathered_wings. Not to mention the (however rare) furred_wings, energy_wings, etc, that would also need to be included.
Updated
watsit said:
Oddly, according to wikipedia:
Isn't that basically the same thing? Having a different term for what's essentially the same structure dependent on the species would be a problem when it's depicted on other species, and neither word would be more valid than the other.
they are not actually the same thing any more so than claws, spikes and, spines are the same. both technically arise along the hindlimbs and torso(e621 definition does not have to be as specific) however one ends at the first digit making up the leading edge of the wing while the other does not. I should have clarified inspired rather then referenced as we do have many tags that do not follow the literal dictionary or founding definition such as human(homo sapien species,e621 human species covers other species besides homo sapien that look alike) or crossgender(founding definition only covers male and female, e621 crossgender tag also covers other sexes outside the binary).
A tag for the plagiopatagium might make sense, but that leaves the question of stuff like this:
post #6004185 post #6003100
which as dba fish points out, are basically just abstract, inaccurate, and/or purposely stylized depictions of bat wings. The lines on the inside of the wing and the points on the outside are meant to be evocative of the "fingers" in bat wings, so would they count as plagiopatagium?
the first image does have digits but I do see your point in regard to the latter for wings that look like paper cutouts or just simply visible as a silhouette, who is to say wether the points are just the shape of the membrane or digits supporting the membrane. I see no perfect solution for this, some will just have to be addressed on a case by case basis.
ryu_deacon said:
the first image does have digits but I do see your point in regard to the latter for wings that look like paper cutouts or just simply visible as a silhouette, who is to say wether the points are just the shape of the membrane or digits supporting the membrane. I see no perfect solution for this, some will just have to be addressed on a case by case basis.
to me they look less like digits you'd see in real wings and almost look more like the spines of a hang glider, or those really early flying machines.