Implicating werewolf → wolf
Link to implication

Reason:

Are there any situations where a character could be a werewolf without being a wolf? Or, put another way, are there any images tagged "werewolf" that would confuse anyone searching "wolf" and those werewolf-tagged images appeared in their search results?

EDIT: The tag implication werewolf -> wolf (forum #250888) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.

CNMNE said:
Are there any situations where a character could be a werewolf without being a wolf? Or, put another way, are there any images tagged "werewolf" that would confuse anyone searching "wolf" and those werewolf-tagged images appeared in their search results?

Honestly, yeah. At least with how the tag is used at the moment. (see forum #245152 - tl;dr: "werewolf and wolf anthros are basically the same things ATM, due to tagging werewolf on anything")

winnie_werewolf doesn't really look like a WOLF.

Some "werewolves" only somewhat meet the requirement:
post #1400691 post #1382071 post #1377988 post #155014 post #174137

some end up looking like cats, generic canines, 'were huskies' or even bears at some points. BUt this is, I think, more of a flaw of the werewolf tag than the idea of a werewolf -> wolf implication.

you are not supposed to tag fantasy animals with their irl counterparts. also there is cases where werewolf resembles more like human with extra body hair, big teeth and pointy ears. that cannot be tagged as wolf either.

Should a satyr be tagged goat? Otherwise -1.

-1, generally I don't see werewolves as wolves specifically, sometimes they don't even look like a wolf.

From what I gathered, species tags of real-life animals look as though they can be applied more generally than of fictional species.

Case in point:
post #1395899 probably wouldn't be called a "wolf" specifically by many people's standards , but they are a humanoid with wolf-like characteristics (and whether those characteristics actually look wolf-like without outside information is subjective — are those white wolf ears/tail, or white fox ears/tail?), and that is enough for the wolf tag to be applied.

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
Should a satyr be tagged goat?

I mean, I'd think so, if just exhibiting characteristics of a particular species is enough to be tagged with such (as in the case above; and as with werewolves as well, even if all they have is "extra body hair, big teeth and pointy ears"). But, if the first sentence of what Commander_Eggplant is true, then I guess I could understand if exceptions are made for animal_humanoids and non-mythological hybrids.

SnowWolf said:
Honestly, yeah. At least with how the tag is used at the moment.

Would you say that, if the werewolf tag had been being applied perfectly, that the implication for a wolf tag would be suitable? But, even wolf anthros improperly tagged as werewolf would still be tagged with wolf under other circumstances.

I guess, just searching werewolf -wolf, I see many, many images of what would look like something that would be tagged with wolf if they hadn't been already tagged with werewolf, and I see far fewer (if any) images of "werewolves" that wouldn't be tagged as wolf if they hadn't been tagged with werewolf.

This also seems to me to be a partial solution to forum #245152, where any wolf-type character is tagged with wolf, and, if they are sufficiently beastly/werewolf-like, then they are also tagged with werewolf. This seems a lot easier to me rather than trying to distinguish between the two.

CNMNE said:
From what I gathered, species tags of real-life animals look as though they can be applied more generally than of fictional species.

Case in point:
post #1395899

I went ahead and fixed that. As written in the reason field, we literally have tags for various *_humanoid. Animal humanoids have long since been agreed upon (by staff at least) to not be tagged their general species counterparts; they are at most tagged their less specific families: canine, feline, bovine, et cetera. There should be various implication chains, but unfortunately wolf_humanoid does not have an implication to canine, unlike cat_humanoid and others.

CNMNE said:
post #1395899 probably wouldn't be called a "wolf" specifically by many people's standards , but they are a humanoid with wolf-like characteristics (and whether those characteristics actually look wolf-like without outside information is subjective — are those white wolf ears/tail, or white fox ears/tail?), and that is enough for the wolf tag to be applied.

It's a bit off topic (especially as Siral is 100% on the nose about having *_humanoid tags :) ) but it's why I always try to ask myself "is this a wolf or is this some generic canine?" I try to err on the side of 'canine' more often.

The canine family in general has a lot of feature overlap. Foxes, Coyotes, Jackals, some Dogs, and wolves are basically... highly similar, especially when you move into warmer climates where animals tend to be smaller and have mess fluff and more generic tan/brown fur -- compare a mexican wolf to a coyote to a black backed jackal to an african golden wolf to a culpeo Fox to a ... well, I could go on.

Needless to say, once you venture over into "what is this weird purple and white animal?" "canine" seems safer to me.

Would you say that, if the werewolf tag had been being applied perfectly, that the implication for a wolf tag would be suitable? But, even wolf anthros improperly tagged as werewolf would still be tagged with wolf under other circumstances.

I guess, just searching werewolf -wolf, I see many, many images of what would look like something that would be tagged with wolf if they hadn't been already tagged with werewolf, and I see far fewer (if any) images of "werewolves" that wouldn't be tagged as wolf if they hadn't been tagged with werewolf.

Well, as stated, I am of the belief that werewolf should only be used for creatures that are transforming or appear to be ferally out of control, vicious, intense etc.

Y'know.. this: post #1413319 post #1408886
not post #1424326 post #1407935 post #1400117 or post #1401343

.... less controversially, werewolf implies canine, and 'were' which suggests that "werewolf' is being treated like a separate species of canine.

....which makes it all the more frustrating when someone takes a perfectly normal, intelligent tribal wolf anthro and decides that it's a werewolf. *grump*

Siral_Exan said:
we literally have tags for various *_humanoid.

Okay, whoops. So it looks like my understanding of species tags was totally bunked up from improper tagging, and a really common case of one at that.

So, what I'm gathering from all this is that werewolves aren't categorically wolves, just that they are creatures that possess enough "wolf-like" features (that are common among many canines and not specifically to wolves) to be at least considered a canine.

But still, while I can get why we might say that something like post #1420886 is not eligible for the wolf tag, something like post #1413319 looks unambiguously like a wolf standing on its hind legs in a ferocious manner (and, as of right now, is suitably tagged with wolf). And, honestly, I have similar thoughts with post #1408886 (which is currently tagged with werewolf but not with wolf) — if the werewolf tag hadn't existed (which I'm not proposing at all — it's a useful but confusing tag), I would think that there would be little debate that this creature would have been tagged with wolf, just that it ventured enough to the [wolf + full moon] and beastly territory to be tagged with werewolf.

SnowWolf said:
Well, as stated, I am of the belief that werewolf should only be used for creatures that are transforming or appear to be ferally out of control, vicious, intense etc.

Those are simple enough conditions, but there are cases where an image should be tagged with werewolf but does not satisfy your definition, as well as cases where your definition is satisfied but the image should not be tagged with werewolf.

That aforementioned freakish, furless, fellatating monstrosity (post #1420886) is not transforming nor is it "ferally out of control", etc. But, it looks more human than wolf, so the wolf tag arguably doesn't apply (unless we're willing to horrify some people looking for some moe wolf anthros by tagging it with wolf_humanoid). On the other hand, it definitely looks like the classic human-wearing-rubber-mask–style of werewolves, and so it has been appropriately tagged with werewolf.

And then here's post #737894, who is transforming into an ordinary anthro wolf (via sexual stimulation because this is a wonderfully shameless fandom) and not a werewolf. But, based on your definition, this should be tagged with werewolf because of the transformation. But, if we object by saying, "Well, we can clearly see that he's transforming into an anthro wolf and not a werewolf", then that would mean that we can tell whether something is a werewolf regardless of whether it's transforming, which would render that part of your definition moot.

And post #1097177 post #820657 post #787326 post #786075 all display ferally ferocious/etc. wolves, though they weren't tagged with werewolf (though some of them may be werewolves based on source information (like the first one, which could also be seen as a ferally ferocious tribal wolf)). Ditto my previous point about being able to tell whether something's a werewolf outside of the definition.

(And, to tie everything to the main topic of the thread, if we were to then amend these images to werewolf because of this definition, we would then need to strip them of their wolf tag per that unenforced rule stated by Commander_Eggplant, and justify this because there's so much overlap in features between canines that it's okay to stop seeing them as wolves once they're seen as werewolves.)

_{(Aside: Love the "werewolf" explaining the LHC.)}

CNMNE said:
Okay, whoops. So it looks like my understanding of species tags was totally bunked up from improper tagging, and a really common case of one at that.

So, what I'm gathering from all this is that werewolves aren't categorically wolves, just that they are creatures that possess enough "wolf-like" features (that are common among many canines and not specifically to wolves) to be at least considered a canine.

Or something like that at least. IT's quite squishy and some characters and species really muss that up.

But still, while I can get why we might say that something like post #1420886 is not eligible for the wolf tag,

should have the monster tag, in my opinion, if he doesn't already.

something like post #1413319 looks unambiguously like a wolf standing on its hind legs in a ferocious manner (and, as of right now, is suitably tagged with wolf). And, honestly, I have similar thoughts with post #1408886 (which is currently tagged with werewolf but not with wolf)

Well, I don't, personally, see a problem with tagging a character with more than one species tag if applicable enough. There are a lot of things I've tagged with, say, both goat and sheep. so, for the first one especially, that does look a LOT like a wolf, AND a werewolf.

I mostly try to ask myself--if someone is searching for TagX, will they want to see this?

— if the werewolf tag hadn't existed (which I'm not proposing at all — it's a useful but confusing tag), I would think that there would be little debate that this creature would have been tagged with wolf, just that it ventured enough to the [wolf + full moon] and beastly territory to be tagged with werewolf.

That and some people, a decade or so back decided that they would call their anthro wolves 'werewolves... case in point: post #250014 (note the text) and it *stuck* ... it doesnt' matter that there's no signs of transformation or human-ness or non-wolfness, just.. "hey, here's a society of tribal styled anthro wolves. they're werewolves. Even when there's all indication that they're ALWAYS in that one shape: post #65142

It is basically a gross violation of the idea of "tag what you see"... Now, someone try to sell me on the idea that these werewolves are someones ~created species~ like chakats or something, and ask to tag them as werewolf_(tribes) or something, and I'd be ALL FOR IT, because I honestly fucking LOVE that kind of art. But those aren't werewolves.

Those are simple enough conditions, but there are cases where an image should be tagged with werewolf but does not satisfy your definition, as well as cases where your definition is satisfied but the image should not be tagged with werewolf.

That aforementioned freakish, furless, fellatating monstrosity (post #1420886) is not transforming nor is it "ferally out of control", etc. But, it looks more human than wolf, so the wolf tag arguably doesn't apply

True! But that one would be, as mentioned, a monster. I think, anyway.

(unless we're willing to horrify some people looking for some moe wolf anthros by tagging it with wolf_humanoid)

Hahhaa, nope. wolf humanoid's suposed to be for, like, ears-and-tail kemonomimi types. Maybe one or two other minor features.

On the other hand, it definitely looks like the classic human-wearing-rubber-mask–style of werewolves, and so it has been appropriately tagged with werewolf.

I can't disagree with that. Except in that I"m not sure that werewolves "should" be able to engage in sexual conduct 90% of the time. Again, werewolfyness implying--to me--degree of out-of-the-controllishness.

And then here's post #737894, who is transforming into an ordinary anthro wolf (via sexual stimulation because this is a wonderfully shameless fandom) and not a werewolf. But, based on your definition, this should be tagged with werewolf because of the transformation. But, if we object by saying, "Well, we can clearly see that he's transforming into an anthro wolf and not a werewolf", then that would mean that we can tell whether something is a werewolf regardless of whether it's transforming, which would render that part of your definition moot.

Well, as I said in my post on the other thread, THAT looks like a species_transformation, versus a werewolf. human -> wolf transformation doesn't automatically equal werewolf.

Also we are a gloriously shameless fandom, but hey, if it makes peopel happy... :)

And post #1097177 post #820657 post #787326 post #786075 all display ferally ferocious/etc. wolves, though they weren't tagged with werewolf (though some of them may be werewolves based on source information (like the first one, which could also be seen as a ferally ferocious tribal wolf)). Ditto my previous point about being able to tell whether something's a werewolf outside of the definition.

Well, to my subjective eyes, the first one looks like 'human anger' versus 'beastly anger'.. the second one I'd consider as a werewolf--nice picture :D ... 3 seeks intelligent and 'human' in the eyes still. while the 4th looks like someone with an oversized pet. Could be a werewolf, though, sure.

(And, to tie everything to the main topic of the thread, if we were to then amend these images to werewolf because of this definition, we would then need to strip them of their wolf tag per that unenforced rule stated by Commander_Eggplant, and justify this because there's so much overlap in features between canines that it's okay to stop seeing them as wolves once they're seen as werewolves.)

honestly, beats me. I'm jsut stating my opinion. It's not likely to get any traction though-- too many peopel are attached to the idea of werewolf as a species rather than... anything else. Or maybe they don't want to do the work of cleaning out the tag, I dunno.

_{(Aside: Love the "werewolf" explaining the LHC.)}

I know right? A part of me wants to get up and stomp around and make emphatic gestures of anger whenever I see it. XD

alright. 4 years later.
what is 2022's thoughts on werewolf?

....I'm still grumpy about the massive number of 'werewolves' that are just wolf anthros.

I think werewolf should imply wolf, just as werecanine implies canine. What's the difference between a werewolf and werecanine otherwise? Admittedly there are a number of werewolves that don't really look like wolves, but considering e6 isn't some fine art museum catering to the best and most realistic artwork, there are a number of wolves that don't look like wolves too, so I say it's kinda par for the course.

watsit said:
I think werewolf should imply wolf, just as werecanine implies canine. What's the difference between a werewolf and werecanine otherwise? Admittedly there are a number of werewolves that don't really look like wolves, but considering e6 isn't some fine art museum catering to the best and most realistic artwork, there are a number of wolves that don't look like wolves too, so I say it's kinda par for the course.

But then, what's the difference between a werewolf and an anthro wolf?

snowwolf said:
But then, what's the difference between a werewolf and an anthro wolf?

Ideally a werewolf would be more ferocious or monstrous looking, e.g. more disheveled fur, sharp teeth and claws, snarly expression, lack of apparent higher-level thinking, etc, or some indication of the character being a transformed creature (non-exclusive or all-inclusive, just various traits that could be present). I know werewolf is way over tagged on things that are no different from plain anthro wolves, but I would say we should be allowed to remove it from such posts if there isn't anything more.

snowwolf said:
But then, what's the difference between a werewolf and an anthro wolf?

unless the character's shown transforming due to moonlight or whatever, uhh... lore, mostly? same's true for other were-creatures. (other than stuff like werehogs)

EDIT: I guess you could say the build of the character's body. werewolves are typically pretty top-heavy, large upper bodies and shoulders and smaller legs (sometimes to a comical degree). but I feel like that wouldn't discribe quite a few posts where the character's actively transforming or they're clearly post-transformation... but also like, characters TF all the time in furry art, so how would we even determine if a character TFed because they're a werewolf or because any other reason from the laundry list of ways characters transform.

The tag implication werewolf -> wolf (forum #250888) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.