no_humanoids tag

BUR #3001 has been rejected.

create alias no_humans -> no_humanoids

Currently, the no_humans wiki uses the word "humanoid" then defines it as "characters who appear identical to humans but are canonically not human".

Use this tag when no humans (or humanoids, e.g. human-looking homunculus, youkai, or the like) are visible in the picture.

The term "humanoid" commonly refers to the basic human shape - one head, two arms, stands on two legs, similar proportions etc. This implies that the tag is for posts with no characters who resemble the human shape (definition A). However, the examples that this wiki lists as humanoids are homunculi (artificially created beings meant to resemble humans) and youkai (spirits from Japanese folklore that are said to take human form). This definition is a lot stricter and, combined with the tag's current name, implies that the tag is actually for any character that isn't of the human species (or a close fictional version, such as an elf), as it is essentially saying "don't tag no_humans based on lore" (definition B).

Since the tag has (for the most part) been added by users going by definition A, I think we should keep this definition for the tag - however, the wiki should be rewritten and the name needs to be changed because keeping it as no_humans is rather unintuitive. This is what I propose as the new definition:

Use this tag when no humanoid characters (humans, furries, androids, demon girls/boys etc.) or monster girls/boys are visible in the post.

EDIT: This bulk update request is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

EDIT: This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 60 days.

EDIT: The bulk update request #3001 (forum #169200) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

I would be fine with this change, if you would exclude pokemons and maybe more from this, because I don´t really count pokemons, with a humanoid shape, as "humans" like that. For example, we have gardevoir with over 600 images tagged as no humans and when I see a pokemon, even if it looks like a humanoid, I would still tag it with no_humans. Then there are images with gardevoir, other pokemons and no humans, which wouldn´t be possible if we change the tag to "no_humanoids".

Well, I´m not one who searches that often for no humans, but I couldn´t imagine not using it, when I have a solo Gardevoir image, which is tagged as pokemon_(creature) but not no_humans. I understand the problem with this wiki and the tag, but right now I´m not happy with that suggestion.

I think this is a fairly useless alias.
I don't see the need for a change simply because there is some misuse of the tag (this happens with every tag).

To me, it is a pretty clear usage and doesn't require further clarification.
Although, if you want to be correct in a technical way, then it's a correct alias of course.

Guaro1238 said:

I would be fine with this change, if you would exclude pokemons and maybe more from this, because I don´t really count pokemons, with a humanoid shape, as "humans" like that. For example, we have gardevoir with over 600 images tagged as no humans and when I see a pokemon, even if it looks like a humanoid, I would still tag it with no_humans. Then there are images with gardevoir, other pokemons and no humans, which wouldn´t be possible if we change the tag to "no_humanoids".

Well, I´m not one who searches that often for no humans, but I couldn´t imagine not using it, when I have a solo Gardevoir image, which is tagged as pokemon_(creature) but not no_humans. I understand the problem with this wiki and the tag, but right now I´m not happy with that suggestion.

I don't think a humanoid character being a Pokémon should enable it to be tagged with no_humanoids. It's an unintuitive exemption that goes against the idea of "tag what you see" because it only makes sense in the context that all Pokémon are treated as pets in the main series games.

AngryZapdos said:

BUR #3001 has been rejected.

create alias no_humans -> no_humanoids

Currently, the no_humans wiki uses the word "humanoid" then defines it as "characters who appear identical to humans but are canonically not human".

Just FYI, the e.g. in the wiki's wording means "for example". It isn't a definition; rather, it's meant to be illustrative of the types of beings that may be classified as humanoids for this tag's purposes. If it were a definition, it would use the abbreviation i.e. instead. While it includes "characters who appear identical to humans", it certainly isn't limited to them. A looser reading of the wiki would extend it to include any number of other human-shaped beings including aliens, demons, mecha musume, monster girls, pokemon, etc.

+1 to aliasing because the term "no humans" is misleading. It's been confusing taggers for a long time. And like @nonamethanks said in the other thread, two tags for this would only cause more problems.

Provence said:

To me, it is a pretty clear usage and doesn't require further clarification.

When uploaders are regularly using this tag for things like post #3174168 and post #3953143, its intended usage obviously isn't "pretty clear".

Well, if you want to be very pedantic, it should be no_sapients since there are intelligent speaking characters that are non-humanoid such as Rimuru Tempest and non-sapient humanoids such as zombies and golems.

Really though, I'm not sure what the point of the no humans tag or any category of it are at this point. I mean, what do people want to see when they search that tag? If we can't answer that question, then we might as well nuke the whole thing.

BrokenEagle98 said:
Really though, I'm not sure what the point of the no humans tag or any category of it are at this point. I mean, what do people want to see when they search that tag? If we can't answer that question, then we might as well nuke the whole thing.

Personally while I've not used the tag to specifically search for images with no humans in them, I use it a LOT to remove such images from the search.

To be honest, wherever you draw the line with a tag there are going to be borderline stuff and people getting confused as to where the boundary for it is. That's not a reason to not have the tag, though.

See my response in forum #169264.

iridescent_slime said:

When uploaders are regularly using this tag for things like post #3174168 and post #3953143, its intended usage obviously isn't "pretty clear".

Then it has to be brought up to attention and not something as drastic as a complete tag change.

It's basically what @evazion said, although he wrote more than an one-liner. But it should be pretty obvious when you read the wiki page.

This bulk update request is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 60 days.

The bulk update request #3001 (forum #169200) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.