Topic: Taur things [BUR]s

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

Ryu Deacon

Member

The bulk update request #9047 is pending approval.

create implication long_neck_taur (36) -> taur (20688)
create implication rear_taur (13) -> taur (20688)
create implication chocobo_taur (59) -> chocobo (1420)
create implication drider (198) -> humanoid_taur (6044)
create implication hand_taur (20) -> taur (20688)
create implication protogen_taur (2) -> protogen (10784)
create implication protogen_taur (2) -> taur (20688)
create implication salamander_taur (9) -> amphibian_taur (14)
create implication salamander_taur (9) -> salamander (6911)
create implication tardigrade_taur (24) -> tardigrade (63)
create implication tardigrade_taur (24) -> taur (20688)
create implication axolotl_taur (2) -> axolotl (3254)
create implication axolotl_taur (2) -> taur (20688)
create implication chimera_taur (12) -> chimera (10191)
create implication chimera_taur (12) -> taur (20688)
create implication mollusk_taur (10) -> mollusk (23875)
create implication mollusk_taur (10) -> taur (20688)

Reason: other bits and pieces..

Ryu Deacon

Member

The bulk update request #9058 is pending approval.

create implication tiny_upper_body (8) -> small_upper_body (198)
create implication small_upper_body (198) -> taur (20688)

Reason: Taurs with smaller upper bodies

small > comparable to regular size difference post #4937367 post #3909505
tiny > comparable to micro and macro levels of size difference post #2024295 post #1853980

PS: They could probably use better names like 'disproportionate_taur' and 'macro-micro_taur' respectively for example but will leave as is for now, suggestions appreciated.

Ryu Deacon

Member

watsit said:
I think small_upper_bodied_taur would be a better name for this. small_upper_body reads like it can apply to normal bipeds that have a small torso/chest and head with short arms, and larger long legs.

Ya, I did consider that but was hoping there might be something shorter^^;

Ryu Deacon

Member

The bulk update request #9109 is pending approval.

create implication two_taur (22) -> taur (20688)
create implication two_taur (22) -> conjoined (2590)
create implication feral_taur (44) -> taur (20688)
create implication feral_taur (44) -> conjoined (2590)
create implication multi_taur (78) -> multi_body (134)
create implication long_taur (266) -> multi_leg (2231)
create alias taur_train (15) -> long_taur (266)

Reason: multi taur bits and pieces

two taur > individual upper bodies attached at both ends of the lower body.
feral taur > lower body is a complete fully formed living/thinking feral specimen, conjoined to an anthro/human/humanoid.

Manitka

Janitor

ryu_deacon said:
Do the BURs in this thread happen to be invisible to users??

No they’re all visible, why would they be invisible?

Ryu Deacon

Member

manitka said:
No they’re all visible, why would they be invisible?

No votes wether negative or positive and no feedback besides the one post by watsit. Some of these are no more complicated/debatable than a simple artist name change yet no votes or feedback. Which might suggest the posts are being hidden to certain users.

SCTH

Member

Personally I don't like species_taur; we don't do that with anthro or feral, and I don't really see the reason they're any more useful with taur or humanoid.

Manitka

Janitor

ryu_deacon said:
No votes wether negative or positive and no feedback besides the one post by watsit. Some of these are no more complicated/debatable than a simple artist name change yet no votes or feedback. Which might suggest the posts are being hidden to certain users.

I’ve seen this a few times but I don’t know enough about taurs to vote, honestly.

And in all honesty like scth said I’m not the biggest fan of all of the super specific species taurs, but I don’t want to vote based on my own preferences.

Ryu Deacon

Member

bumping this again, every prior <species>_taur implication does seem to get approved pretty much automatically by which ever mod happens to see them usually in under a year that they were submited so.

Ryu Deacon

Member

scth said:
taur is a form, not a species on its own. Any species can be depicted as any form. (And tags that are just species+taur shouldn't exist - many do, but that's not the case here).

I presume you want to also remove chakats as well as remove all species implicated marine, avian, scalie tags as that is where your logic goes. Hell lets not have any implications to mammal, because all said species could hypothetically be depicted as not being mammals.

Watsit

Privileged

ryu_deacon said:
I presume you want to also remove chakats as well as remove all species implicated marine, avian, scalie tags as that is where your logic goes.

That's... not at all the logic. They're talking about species implying form, not species implying their taxonomic group. Hawk implies avian because a hawk is definitionally an avian and can never not be an avian; you can't depict a hawk without depicting an avian, just as you can't depict a fox without depicting a mammal since a fox is definitionally a mammal. A hybrid fox/hawk would also be a hybrid mammal/avian, so the tags remain valid even there.

In contrast, implying form would be more like having lucario imply anthro, since a lucario is defined as an anthropomorphic canine. But people can depicted lucario as humanoid or feral, making anthro invalid. Having specific tags that are just a taur of some species would be akin to having specific tags that are just an anthro of some species, and isn't something we normally do (except humanoid tags for some reason, which I'm not a fan of). How would you tag a feral andalite, or an anthro chakat?