Implicating animate_inanimate → switch_dog
Link to implication

Reason:

Switch Dog is an animate inanimate.

I've already in the past, done manual tag edits for this; but Operation SDAI should become law, so to say.

Fixed order of title, not request.

EDIT: The tag implication animate_inanimate -> switch_dog (forum #250017) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

You got the order wrong, not all animate_inanimates are switch dogs, but -1: switch_dog should not imply any species tag because they are a character. Alternate_species exists and thus a switch dog does not need to be depicted as an animate inanimate, or even a dog, to be tagged as such.

Characters are the only widely-accepted instance of TWYK (Tag What You Know), so in argument you can make a fully anthropomorphic cat, with no signs of them being an inanimate of some form, and label them "Switch Dog". This clearly only works if you have source information or evidence in the image to imply such, but since it can happen it has made implying species with characters always wrong sooner or later.

Is switch_dog really a character though? It looks like something closer to a species imo. Some of them are even given different character names (Switchy, Switchie, Sox) and have multiple switch dogs in one image showing that they AREN'T using 'switch dog' as a character, they're using it as a species.

Nope.

post #1401333 post #1401334

Head is anthro, so those don't qualify as animate_inanimate for me. At best, that rendition has a strap for a tail, which is a weak case for animate_inanimate. Bearing a resemblance to something does not make something the thing it resembles.

Let's actually take a moment to consider what we're discussing.

The problem with animate_inanimate as a tag is it comes in at least two varieties. First, we have the variant that basically has the same body as what it's based on, like living_plush (should implicate animate_inanimate) or pickle_rick. Second, we have the variant that slaps the animated object or its features onto a recognizable body type, like switch_dog (object_heads) or anthrofied Tide PODs (post #1415253). The former group is around 90% inanimate form-10% animate form, whereas the latter is around 20% inanimate form-80% animate form. The former group should be tagged animate_inanimate and whatever object they are but not necessarily a body type. The latter group can be tagged animate_inanimate and should also be tagged for whatever body type they've adapted.

That sets the foundation for what I want to say: renditions of switch_dog usually have as much anthro qualities as a dog_humanoid, less in fact. They usually come with only quasi-ears, a tail, and a :3 mouth. No fur, stub limbs, no snout, bare minimum of a face, no animal pigmentation. That's "anthro". Hypocrisy. Only two switch_dog posts are tagged humanoid and both feature a regular humanoid with the switch dog. Also, a feral or an anthro can be a dog, but a humanoid can only be a dog_humanoid unless it's also the right kind of split_form. What am I missing?

I don't even like calling an object_head--only a partial inanimate form from the neck up--an animate_inanimate when the rest of the body has little or no resemblance to the animated thing. I don't like having these add-on animates in the same group as full body animates.

There is no spoon.]

-1
Generally implicating characters to something is really bad idea, because you can still draw anthro character as feral once and now the whole implication is wrong.

One thing that switch dog could be implicated to is nintendo_switch as if the character can be distinguished, it's then made out of parts of switch.

regsmutt said:
Is switch_dog really a character though? It looks like something closer to a species imo. Some of them are even given different character names (Switchy, Switchie, Sox) and have multiple switch dogs in one image showing that they AREN'T using 'switch dog' as a character, they're using it as a species.

That's starting to be fair point. I wouldn't oppose to change it into species tag.

-1
post #1223699

I notice the smaller Switch Dog is, the less anthro and more object it apears.
post #1124005 Semi-Anthro
post #1289410 Anthro
With that, perhaps the Tag Implication involves Switch_Dog + Semi-Anthro -> Animate_Inanimate.
And then anthro gets left alone from animate_inanimate.
That is, if specific Tag Implications that involve other tags are possible.

Although more switch_dog posts would have to be tagged with semi-anthro (properly of course, semi-anthro seems to be a shakey tag, as that tag isn't all too commonly used if you look to Switch_Dog.

Houston_Jobo said:
That is, if specific Tag Implications that involve other tags are possible.

Unfortunatly not. and even if they could, mistakes would happen--there could be a semi anthro character with said switch dog.

It'd be like ... if you looked for white_fur and tiger to imply white_tiger, what happens if the tiger's relaxing with a polar bear? Y'know?

SnowWolf said:
It'd be like ... if you looked for white_fur and tiger to imply white_tiger, what happens if the tiger's relaxing with a polar bear? Y'know?

Yeah, but that's a problem with just about every tag combination. Searching female fox gets you things like post #1083838, and making a vixen or female_fox tag to fix that would open up a can of worms large enough to sustain a third world country.

BlueDingo said:
Yeah, but that's a problem with just about every tag combination. Searching female fox gets you things like post #1083838, and making a vixen tag to fix that would open up a can of worms large enough to sustain a third world country.

Well, my point is that we can't make implications like that, and even if we could, it'd be more wrong than right. :)

SnowWolf said:
Unfortunatly not.

Drat! I suppose I'll just manually tag. That is: If Semi-Anthro with Switch_Dog could imply animate_inanimate, and if Switch_Dog could even be tagged with animate_inanimate.

It seems Tag Implications are worse than just manually putting in tags with a post; what with the scrambling. It's weird because when I did Operation SDAI, it was very cut and dry.

"Oh Switch_Dog is a tag in this post? It doesn't have animate_inanimate? Now it does."
(Also: If that's not how that tag works, then I might have to undo tag edits...)

How there doesn't seem to be a system (other than user input) for this is an awkward head-scratcher.

BlueDingo said:
A clearer analogy.

1. This must be hard to understand. Most switch dogs are not anthro. If ROTHY got their second negative record for tagging Smolder as anthro instead of humanoid (a.k.a., precedent), then switch dogs definitely are not anthro. They have feature parity with Smolder, except for the object_head that is even less anthro than Smolder's normal flat face.

It would help so much if the anthro wiki separated itself from humanoid and not just feral, namely by listing anthro features that bias bipeds away from humanoid and toward anthro. Beyond biped, snout (vs flat face) must be the most decisive anatomical anthro feature, because fur/feathers/scales often are too minimally drawn or "skipped" as with most switch dogs. As written, anthro does a better job of describing humanoid features than anthro ones.

2. Semi-anthro is not a proper body type. A semi-anthro character is either anthro or feral. Tagging semi-anthro merely notes the potential for confusion between the two body types. No, the semi-anthro wiki does not use plain English to say that... Instead see tag group:body types:

You should additionally tag as either anthro or feral when using this tag.

Leaving a post tagged only with semi-anthro means you gave up and could not pick a winner between anthro and feral. Semi-anthro + anthro/feral => "this was not a simple decision" or "I can see the potential for confusion".

That's not actually my point. My point is that I highly doubt we can hook any implication logic into semi-anthro because the tag is essentially annotation, a footnote, commentary. It's not anything specific because it could mean any number of things. There's no there there. Suggesting otherwise betrays a fundamental misunderstanding.

And no, we can't implicate tag combinations to something else (i.e., if A + B, therefore also C); we can only do direct implications (i.e., if A, therefore also B).

The tag implication animate_inanimate -> switch_dog (forum #250017) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.