The tag alias #76252 near-human -> humanoid is pending approval.

Reason: we don't need another tag for humanoids

The humanoid tag family is too broad and almost universally misused. It needs to go.

"Humanoid" can mean anything from "human with pointy ears" to "aeromorph" to "synonym for anthro" (which it isn't supposed to but there are literal thousands of images mistagging it that way). As it stands right now, it's worse than useless. It's in a sorrier state than even the video games tag was.

This is part of my efforts to split things and introduce some tags that are actually specific. Right now there is no tag to describe "human with pointy ears" and I'm trying to fix that.

lendrimujina said:
This is part of my efforts to split things and introduce some tags that are actually specific.

Do not start these efforts on your own. This is textbook tagging abuse. Stop adding the tag to posts and start a topic to discuss it with the community.

donovan_dmc said:
Do not start these efforts on your own. This is textbook tag abuse, start a topic and discuss it with the community

My apologies. I'll stop.

Please at least consider what I'm saying, though.

It would be awful to populate and probably very impractical, but I do feel like many people would want to distinguish humanoids.

I think there's some pretty big differences between these:

Nearly human:
post #4069469 post #1954394 post #4628405 post #4155910 post #4356774 post #1617272

Much less human:
post #5449325 post #1857408 post #5417252 post #4599974 post #4128998 post #3047438

faucet said:
It would be awful to populate and probably very impractical, but I do feel like many people would want to distinguish humanoids.

I think there's some pretty big differences between these:

Nearly human:
post #4069469 post #1954394 post #4628405 post #4155910 post #4356774 post #1617272

Much less human:
post #5449325 post #1857408 post #5417252 post #4599974 post #4128998 post #3047438

My point exactly. Often I want to exclude near-humans from searches. Right now, I cannot without also excluding half the anthros and things that aren't human-looking but aren't anthro either.

lendrimujina said:
Please at least consider what I'm saying, though.

I'm not denying that more specific tags are useful, I'm saying that these things don't come from a single person deciding to start tagging things, that's how you get all your work aliased away (see the first post of this topic)
Anything beyond a handful of posts should be discussed with the community before implementing so naming/implications/redirections/etc can be brought up before any serious effort is put in

donovan_dmc said:
I'm not denying that more specific tags are useful, I'm saying that these things don't come from a single person deciding to start tagging things, that's how you get all your work aliased away (see the first post of this topic)
Anything beyond a handful of posts should be discussed with the community before implementing so naming/implications/redirections/etc can be brought up before any serious effort is put in

I now understand that.

I spotted this topic in the first place because I realized that, at the very least, I'd gotten in over my head by trying to go it alone.

Now that I also realize I broke the site rules in doing so, I apologize agin.

lendrimujina said:
This is part of my efforts to split things and introduce some tags that are actually specific. Right now there is no tag to describe "human with pointy ears" and I'm trying to fix that.

Probably not the best fit for the intended propose given that it appears to be a official race classification within Star Wars ~ https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Near-human

Addition on its own the term 'near-human' is highly variable and subjective along same whims as terms such as subhuman, super-human, transhuman or Übermensch.

faucet said:
It would be awful to populate and probably very impractical, but I do feel like many people would want to distinguish humanoids.

I think there's some pretty big differences between these:

Nearly human:
post #4069469 post #1954394 post #4628405 post #4155910 post #4356774 post #1617272

Much less human:
post #5449325 post #1857408 post #5417252 post #4599974 post #4128998 post #3047438

the line you're drawing here's kinda fuzzy to me, I'm not sure what makes Meru and Gobi all that "much less human" than that other demon girl or that animal_humanoid Nicole.

also, I'm of the opinion that xenomorphs should probably generally just be anthro.

ryu_deacon said:
Probably not the best fit for the intended propose given that it appears to be a official race classification within Star Wars ~ https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Near-human

Addition on its own the term 'near-human' is highly variable and subjective along same whims as terms such as subhuman, super-human, transhuman or Übermensch.

What do you suggest?

dba_afish said:
the line you're drawing here's kinda fuzzy to me, I'm not sure what makes Meru and Gobi all that "much less human" than that other demon girl or that animal_humanoid Nicole.

In my opinion, we should draw the line where the site already draws a line: the young human purge. We just don't currently have a tag to mark species that young versions of would be purged.

dba_afish said:
the line you're drawing here's kinda fuzzy to me, I'm not sure what makes Meru and Gobi all that "much less human" than that other demon girl or that animal_humanoid Nicole.

Yeah I dunno, I wasn't really trying to set a line and rather just trying to point out how much variance there is for what's called a "humanoid." At the time I started writing nobody else had replied yet.

lendrimujina said:
What do you suggest?

I dont really have one, the humanoid_pointy_ears tag does seem to cover the sort of characters that seem to be desired in this thread well enough, baring some edge cases such as gardivoir which honestly actually shouldn't be there in the first place as they don't even have ears:/ where would you draw the line on edge cases through? the list that faucet gave is not really helpful as half of those they listed under 'much less human' are indistinguishable from the those in 'nearly human'..

I guess this has become the de facto discussion topic, hasn't it.

Implications will be a bit tough because a lot of near-humans have an alternate furry form (e.g. countless anime and games have secret species of girls with animal ears turning into dragons). Can't even imply elf because not all interpretations of elves between franchises qualify.

The only species I can think of that would ALWAYS qualify are hylians and most of the species from Star Trek.

dba_afish said:
I'm of the opinion that xenomorphs should probably generally just be anthro.

agreed

I’m not against the idea, but implementing it adequately (that is, adding it to the many thousands of posts that would need it) is a bit daunting, and might not even be feasible.

Also, humanoid is a huge mess and has been for years. Anthros are humanoids according to the dictionary definition of the word, and people very frequently tag it as such, and will continue to do so for as long as the tag has that name. I wonder if renaming the tag to near-human would be better…

dba_afish said:
also, I'm of the opinion that xenomorphs should probably generally just be anthro.

Yes, particularly because there are actual xenomorph humanoids that look different than xenomorph anthros. Behold:
post #3068628

lendrimujina said:
In my opinion, we should draw the line where the site already draws a line: the young human purge. We just don't currently have a tag to mark species that young versions of would be purged.

meru_(merunyaa) solo delreason:*purge*

spe said:
I’m not against the idea, but implementing it adequately (that is, adding it to the many thousands of posts that would need it) is a bit daunting, and might not even be feasible.

Also, humanoid is a huge mess and has been for years. Anthros are humanoids according to the dictionary definition of the word, and people very frequently tag it as such, and will continue to do so for as long as the tag has that name. I wonder if renaming the tag to near-human would be better…

Yes, particularly because there are actual xenomorph humanoids that look different than xenomorph anthros. Behold:
post #3068628

Big +1 for renaming humanoid and near-human sounds like a good enough option to me. I agree xenomorphs should be anthro as well, they're fairly animal based.

spe said:
Also, humanoid is a huge mess and has been for years. Anthros are humanoids according to the dictionary definition of the word, and people very frequently tag it as such, and will continue to do so for as long as the tag has that name. I wonder if renaming the tag to near-human would be better…

The idea was to distinguish things that are basically humans (elves, ala link and princess_zelda) from the less human creatures (gardevoir, kemomimis, etc). I also don't think I'd call things like mawile, midna, or certain types of demon_humanoids to be "near-human", in the same way hylians and the like are.

watsit said:
The idea was to distinguish things that are basically humans (elves, ala link and princess_zelda) from the less human creatures (gardevoir, kemomimis, etc). I also don't think I'd call things like mawile, midna, or certain types of demon_humanoids to be "near-human", in the same way hylians and the like are.

We could use the Pokemon egg group style and rename humanoid to human-like for things like Garde and kemomimis
Things like elves and characters that are just "person with one animal part" can be near-human because anatomy-wise, they would be the most similar with how their body works

nin10dope said:
We could use the Pokemon egg group style and rename humanoid to human-like for things like Garde and kemomimis
Things like elves and characters that are just "person with one animal part" can be near-human because anatomy-wise, they would be the most similar with how their body works

human-like has the same problem as humanoid, honestly. I mean, using pokémon as an example, like 60% of mons they consider "human-like" are anthros.

dba_afish said:
human-like has the same problem as humanoid, honestly. I mean, using pokémon as an example, like 60% of mons they consider "human-like" are anthros.

Fairrrrr
I think one clear line you can make is that if a character has any fur, they're not allowed to be humanoid/human-like/near-human
One could say what about nekos and stuff, but in practicality we could just say that's the way it is

nin10dope said:
Fairrrrr
I think one clear line you can make is that if a character has any fur, they're not allowed to be humanoid/human-like/near-human
One could say what about nekos and stuff, but in practicality we could just say that's the way it is

kemonomimi and the like definitely aren't anthro, and we really don't need a whole new form to describe a human with any amount of fur

donovan_dmc said:
kemonomimi and the like definitely aren't anthro, and we really don't need a whole new form to describe a human with any amount of fur

I think I meant that they would count as near-human despite technically having fur.

I'll add my two cents. The viewer's perception of humanoidness level, even within the case of the very same character, might vary depending on the artist's style. More simplistic art styles can make it more abiguous for the audience to judge, for instance, when there isn't enough detail to determine if the character has fur or not. What do you think?

czyszy said:
I'll add my two cents. The viewer's perception of humanoidness level, even within the case of the very same character, might vary depending on the artist's style. More simplistic art styles can make it more ambiguous for the audience to judge, for instance, when there isn't enough detail to determine if the character has fur or not. What do you think?

Honestly I don't see that idea.
Them being rated as humanoid versus anthro is pretty clear to me.
Like humanoid is for characters that aren't recognizable as animals.