Pokemorph. Neomorph_(neopets). Digimorph. What's wrong with anthro plus the relevant copyright tag? Serious question.

In the case of Pokemon, not all Pokemon are considered anthros even when they've been "anthrofied"- see basically any Pokemon based off of an inanimate object or human-shaped Pokemon that aren't particularly animal-like in their appearance.

lendrimujina said:
Pokemorph. Neomorph_(neopets). Digimorph. What's wrong with anthro plus the relevant copyright tag? Serious question.

At least for pokemon and digimon, many of them are already anthro. The pokemorph tag, for example, applies to pokemon species that are "more anthro" or "more human-like" than normal, even if they were already anthro. For instance, zoroark is already an anthro normally:
post #5010083
But it's possible to depict one significantly more human-like, but is still anthro:
post #1829691

Similar for midnight_lycanroc, which is already anthro:
post #5426600
but can be "more anthro":
post #2284674

(though I will say, I think someone has pretty liberally applied the pokemorph tag, I see a number of zoroark pokemorph and midnight_lycanroc pokemorph results that I don't think should have pokemorph and seem to have been added because they're not perfectly on_model).

vitreousvice said:
In the case of Pokemon, not all Pokemon are considered anthros, even when they've been "anthrofied"- basically any Pokemon based off of a man-made object or human-shaped Pokemon that aren't particularly animal-like in their appearance.

Ugh, right, I forgot about us conflating non-animal anthros with pointy-eared humans instead of other anthros for some reason...

(I've made my opinion on the utter uselessness of the humanoid tag family known before. The only reason I dropped the tag project I tried to start to split it up is because I got sick in the middle of it.)

Good explanation. It deserve to be on those wiki page.
I have put it with example on pokemorph wiki but I don't know if I should put the link to the discussion as it's repeating the same thing. For now the link to the discussion is present.
For Neomorph_(neopets) and Digimorph I will not search for examples so I am just putting the link to the discussion.

I suspect there's some insight here by noting the entomologic heritage from animorphs - humans morphing to animal forms (and the transformations on their book covers) - and contrasting with the usual meaning of anthropomorphism - nonhumans given human attributes. But I don't know the precise history of it.

d'you think we might ought to merge these tags together? we have a single fakemon tag for any fan created mon/mon-adjacent species for any series.
something like a mon-morph or something might work?

dba_afish said:
d'you think we might ought to merge these tags together? we have a single fakemon tag for any fan created mon/mon-adjacent species for any series.
something like a mon-morph or something might work?

Possibly. Though I'd prefer we alias them to "anthro", I know the site's against me on that, so arguing for it would be futile.

It'd be better than what we've got now, at any rate.

lendrimujina said:
Possibly. Though I'd prefer we alias them to "anthro", I know the site's against me on that, so arguing for it would be futile.

It'd be better than what we've got now, at any rate.

part of the problem with that is that I'm not sure if anthro would apply to stuff like a muk pokemorph or a magnemite pokemorph or any of the non-animal mons.

dba_afish said:
part of the problem with that is that I'm not sure if anthro would apply to stuff like a muk pokemorph or a magnemite pokemorph or any of the non-animal mons.

I argue that it would and should.
As I said before, our insistence on excluding non-animal anthros from the "anthro" tag is part of the reason the humanoid tag family is so completely useless at the moment.

An aeromorph should not be in the same category as Link. End of story.

lendrimujina said:
I argue that it would and should.
As I said before, our insistence on excluding non-animal anthros from the "anthro" tag is part of the reason the humanoid tag family is so completely useless at the moment.

An aeromorph should not be in the same category as Link. End of story.

I very much agree with this, it makes humanoid near meaningless as a form.

dba_afish said:
part of the problem with that is that I'm not sure if anthro would apply to stuff like a muk pokemorph or a magnemite pokemorph or any of the non-animal mons.

As well as that various pokemon are already anthro but can still be "pokemorph-ified". e.g. "lucario anthro" wouldn't be any better at finding lucario pokemorphs than "lucario" alone.

lendrimujina said:
I argue that it would and should.
As I said before, our insistence on excluding non-animal anthros from the "anthro" tag is part of the reason the humanoid tag family is so completely useless at the moment.

An aeromorph should not be in the same category as Link. End of story.

while I don't disagree that the things that fall under humanoid or not might should be reexamined, I still think that, regardless of those changes, not all characters that could be considered a -morph would be anthro under a new definition.

I point again to magnemite pokemorph (as well as nearly all object-mon morphs) who I don't believe would fall under any definition of anthro, regardless of where the new anthro/humanoid line is drawn. these characters almost always just be human bodies with an object_head, which I feel are pretty firmly on the humanoid side of the line, unless we want to change the definitions so that all for_a_head characters that currently fall under humanoid to fall under anthro, which would be a pretty massive upset".