PDA

View Full Version : Anthro Tag Overused



Roki
10-23-2012, 06:09 PM
So, here's some of the more common tags I have been seeing floating around just to have for reference:

Type:
Anthro - An anthropomorphic being; applicable to everything that can be interpreted as having human traits without actually being human.
Furry - Furred anthropomorphic beings; more applicable to talking animals but can carry negative connotations outside of furry community. Applicable to anything that can be interpreted as furry (animalistic aliens, etc).
Scalie/Scaley - Similar to "furry" but denotes scaled beings.
Human - A human or being that can be interpreted as human (vampire, etc).
Humanoid - A creature with humanoid type features; could be an alien, a vampire, a snake person, or a kemonomimi by equal turns.
Kemonomimi - Essentially a creature with mostly human features and a few animal features such as ears and a tail.

I feel like the anthro tag is over applied. Anthro under its current and literal definition must be applied to almost every submission that isn't music, a landscape, an inanimate object, or a feral animal. Furries, scalies, aliens, cars with grills that look like smiles, dancing toasters, jack o' lanterns, and kemonomimi fall under that same tag too, which I think will eventually render it useless for filtering unless you only want to see straight up humans. I feel anthro should be defined as applying to "furry" and "scaley" creatures. This is the most common use of the tag currently, with the few technical exceptions listed above. This would give it a less broad subject range that can be further defined by species and optionally the aforementioned scaley/furry tags.

Does that go against the dictionary definition of anthropomorphic? Yes.

Does it make it more applicable as a tag in the future? I sure think so.

Tiger
10-23-2012, 07:21 PM
Maybe people could be more specific when using the "anthro" tag? Because you're right, and this was mentioned in another thread, the dictionary definition for anthropomorphism is much more broad than some people may realize. If I were to put, say, "Anthro tiger" instead of just "anthro", people who search that know that they will specifically see an anthro furry tiger, as opposed to just typing "anthro" and getting all kinds of creatures and objects.

So yeah, in that case, I'd encourage people who draw a picture with an anthropomorphic subject of any kind to add more tags than just "anthro", and likewise the person looking for a specific type of say, a furry subject, would search for more than just the "anthro" tag.

Roki
10-23-2012, 07:33 PM
While this would be more specific it would also create a ton of extra tags: "anthro_tiger" "anthro_cheetah" and so forth. My concern is actually that the anthro tag will be too general a label and make adding it to your filter overzealous. You'll block way more than just anthro animals.

Tiger
10-23-2012, 07:58 PM
While this would be more specific it would also create a ton of extra tags: "anthro_tiger" "anthro_cheetah" and so forth. My concern is actually that the anthro tag will be too general a label and make adding it to your filter overzealous. You'll block way more than just anthro animals.

Ahh, I gotchya now, misunderstood you at first. You make a good point. However, I think that what is defined or expected to be "anthro" varies from person to person. It might get a little difficult to discern which definition should be applied to the "anthro" tag.

I honestly can't think of any more ways to work with the "anthro" tag filter. Maybe someone else does?

Kazekai
10-23-2012, 09:09 PM
Overuse of the anthro tag is by people who are using the word incorrectly, thinking it is specific to furries.

RX-149Dragonite
10-23-2012, 09:17 PM
Overuse of the anthro tag is by people who are using the word incorrectly, thinking it is specific to furries.

But then we get people who think their artwork isn't furry, which is a problem I've run into.

Something needs to be done where the definitions of each term are set in stone.

Ryunohito
10-23-2012, 09:44 PM
Would labeling "furry" art as "anthro" AND "furry" help anything? Or does that throw a wrench in the gears?

Roki
10-23-2012, 11:22 PM
I think anthro ought to just be applied to furries and closely related types of subjects to reduce the volume of anthro tag use. By its literal definition it is very broad.

Temrin
10-23-2012, 11:40 PM
If its anthro, then tag it as such. If you start requesting people tag it not really what the definition of anthro is, then you start messing the concept of the word and what its supposed to mean :/

Roki
10-24-2012, 12:57 AM
That's the thing, the definition is exceptionally broad. A car with a face is anthro, so is a furry, so is a barn you think has a shocked face. That is all technically anthro.

Oly
10-24-2012, 02:54 AM
Something that looks like it has a face is not the same as something that actually has one.

A barn that you think looks kinda like it has a shocked face is not anthro. It's a barn. Anthro means that it is something non-human given human attributes. If a barn kinda looks like it has a face that's not anthro; if you paint a portrait of a face on one that is also not anthro; if you actually make the barn alive and give it a face, that is anthro.

Roki
10-24-2012, 09:45 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism

"Examples include animals and plants and forces of nature such as winds, rain or the sun depicted as creatures with human motivations, and/or the abilities to reason and converse. The term derives from the combination of the Greek ἄνθρωπος (ánthrōpos), "human" and μορφή (morphē), "shape" or "form"."

RX-149Dragonite
10-24-2012, 10:04 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism

"Examples include animals and plants and forces of nature such as winds, rain or the sun depicted as creatures with human motivations, and/or the abilities to reason and converse. The term derives from the combination of the Greek ἄνθρωπος (ánthrōpos), "human" and μορφή (morphē), "shape" or "form"."

Which means even just talking animals falls under that.

Oly
10-24-2012, 10:30 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism

"Examples include animals and plants and forces of nature such as winds, rain or the sun depicted as creatures with human motivations, and/or the abilities to reason and converse. The term derives from the combination of the Greek ἄνθρωπος (ánthrōpos), "human" and μορφή (morphē), "shape" or "form"."

Exactly, so just looking like it could be alive doesn't count, it has to actually have some element of humanity to it.
If I draw a coffee mug that has a face drawn on it, that shouldn't be tagged anthro, but if I draw a coffee mug that actually has a face it should.

Ceowolf
10-24-2012, 01:04 PM
i think that if people are searching for something, they would search for multiple keywords because anthro has such a broad coverage. if you search for something and dont find it, you look again under something else and, as previously stated, if you go messing with the boundaries of a word then it also becomes useless because you not finding what it truly encompasses

Ben
10-24-2012, 01:23 PM
The anthro tag has primarily been pushed as a standard for the sake of tag filtering. However, you guys are of course correct in that anthro is a very broad term. As such, what we could do is make the standard tag "anthro_animal", and then other things like "anthro_machine" for things like the Brave Little Toaster. Of course, we would need a simple way for people to add these tags, as they're not exactly intuitive. Thoughts?

RX-149Dragonite
10-24-2012, 03:06 PM
The anthro tag has primarily been pushed as a standard for the sake of tag filtering. However, you guys are of course correct in that anthro is a very broad term. As such, what we could do is make the standard tag "anthro_animal", and then other things like "anthro_machine" for things like the Brave Little Toaster. Of course, we would need a simple way for people to add these tags, as they're not exactly intuitive. Thoughts?

Just keep it as is. Anthro is anthro.

Tartii
10-24-2012, 03:16 PM
Merf...honestly as a tag in of itself, yes, anthro is insanely broad, and it is going to be over used. So your going to need to put in more keywords.
But for the sake of filtering...if somebody is going to be offended by a lot of 'anthro' art, on a website that is supposed to welcome all types of art, they really kinda just need to put up with it...? Anthropomorphics are just a huuuuge variety, its not one little thing. So if people are looking to use the term 'anthro' in hopes of filtering out all furry artwork...but are not getting the result they want...I don't think they ever will? =n=''

Forgive me if I'm completely reading this wrong, but I see no point in trying to make a website have an ability to filter out one giant genre out of an entire art community. Its just not going to be possible.

For the sake of tagging, I don't see a problem with anthro being over-used, as long as more terms are added to it.

RX-149Dragonite
10-24-2012, 03:24 PM
For the sake of tagging, I don't see a problem with anthro being over-used, as long as more terms are added to it.

Hence the 3 tags or more rule

Tartii
10-24-2012, 03:35 PM
Hence the 3 tags or more rule

So then what is the issue? Or am I missing something?

Tiger
10-24-2012, 04:16 PM
The anthro tag has primarily been pushed as a standard for the sake of tag filtering. However, you guys are of course correct in that anthro is a very broad term. As such, what we could do is make the standard tag "anthro_animal", and then other things like "anthro_machine" for things like the Brave Little Toaster. Of course, we would need a simple way for people to add these tags, as they're not exactly intuitive. Thoughts?

I agree with RX and Tartii, keep it. I still think it would be best to just search for or use an extra tag if you want/don't want to see a specific anthro subject instead of having to re-work the tag system.

Roki
10-24-2012, 07:48 PM
Actually my argument is to define the tag "anthro" as what we would generally consider furries and scaleys. Remove it from submissions such as the Brave Little Toaster and creatures that can be mistaken as furries or scaleys but are, in fact, not. That is my argument. This makes it a less broad subject, removes need to use "furry" or "scaley" on artwork (which I'm sure there will be some artists who will not want those tags on their works), and should help with filtering. Instead of users who don't want to see furry/scaley artwork needing to filter furry, scaley, scalie, and so forth they can block the anthro tag and it should be more intuitive. It's not so much about searching for it either, it is about how the filter system works.

I feel as though folks were not quite getting that, so hopefully I've made it as succinct as it needs to be. I'm not arguing about changing the definition of the word, I'm arguing about changing the definition of the tag as it applies to this website.

Also: On the topic of the definition of the word anthro. Applying human emotions such as "that squirrel sure looks happy eating those seeds" is considered anthropomorphism in the scientific community. Applying an emotion to an inanimate object or animal is still considered anthropomorphism. In current practice of tagging? No. But I bet someone's going to get a chuckle out of tagging barns and things that look like they have faces as anthro and they would be correct as the definition stands.

Skoll
10-25-2012, 12:50 AM
Although anthro it self it just means anthropomorphic which also means a humanoid character, mostly you see these anthropomorphic characters in myths and legends, such a minotaur, a bull with a humanoid body and such. A furry describes actually a fursona, a humanoid character with animal traits which it can be resumed as an anthropomorphic creature. As you know, the furry fandom includes all species, including plants.

So I don't see the tag anthro as being misused. As as the names mentions it, anthro also applies to aliens, robots, and such. It doesn't have to have a human body, but it can have human characteristics. Such a human face, or ability to walk or move like a human, or talk like a human.

Roki
10-25-2012, 01:00 PM
Yes, that is all technically correct. I think the tag is being overused though, not misused. Because it applies to such a broad spectrum it becomes useless as a filtering device.

Ransom
10-25-2012, 01:48 PM
A furry describes actually a fursona, a humanoid character with animal traits which it can be resumed as an anthropomorphic creature. As you know, the furry fandom includes all species, including plants.

Well said. A creature doesn't need fur to be a furry.


Yes, that is all technically correct. I think the tag is being overused though, not misused. Because it applies to such a broad spectrum it becomes useless as a filtering device.

I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here. Yeah, a bazillion submissions include the "anthro" tag, but that's because 99% of the submissions here feature anthropomorphic characters. The obvious solution would be to be more specific in your searches, use more tags.

Roki
10-25-2012, 03:13 PM
Yes, using more tags is a necessity regardless. My argument is not about searches though, it is about filtering. I don't think this is a mountain out of a molehill so much as it is creating a tag that is useless for anything but running searches.

Here, this is how I'm seeing it:

1. The anthro tag can be applied to a very wide variety of subjects.
2. Anthros are not by definition just furries.
3. All furries are by definition anthros.
4. Blocking the anthro tag will block more than just furries. It will also block aliens, robots, and anything with that tag that happens to have some human characteristics.
5. Blocking the anthro tag then blocks everything but humans, landscapes, animals without cartoony expression, and related subjects without human characteristics.
6. I do not think anthro as a tag should be used for subjects that are not furry and related. This narrows the definition and makes it useful as a filter. It also reduces the need for redundant tagging (for example, I've had to tag every submission of mine both furry and anthro, including some aliens which could be mistaken for either of those).

I am not arguing:

1. That we should redefine the word. I am arguing about redefining the tag.
2. That we should add more tags for searching. I am arguing about filters and how useful the tag is for categorizing.

Does that make more sense? Right now there's a lot of furry art being posted, but once other genres start coming in I see the tag being so prolific and nebulous as more of a problem than a solution.

Temrin
10-25-2012, 03:30 PM
If you try to keep "anthro" to just "furry" related things -you ARE redefining the word on this website-.
Anthro is anthro and things should be tagged as such. I can see it being a pain to filter but honestly, use other key words then?
Sure, will that take a bit longer to do? Yes. But anthro is being use properly (most of the time) and that should be kept that way. If you start telling people they cant use anthro as a tag word on something anthro, then people will start thinking of anthro differently and then, the definition is regards to this particular website will not be the same.

Thus causing a huge mixup of definitions.

Roki
10-25-2012, 04:06 PM
Perhaps a better solution would be being able to use certain tags in conjunction with others as a filter device?

For instance, typing "anthro +furry +scaley +scalie" would block all of those things while leaving the remainder of the anthro tag unblocked, so you still see things other things tagged anthro. I think that had been suggestion previously but to my knowledge isn't implemented and if it were that would render my argument moot. I tried to test it out by using "anthro + furry" but it came out as "anthrofurry" and didn't actually do anything.

Zalcoti
10-25-2012, 04:10 PM
There's going to be a few tags overused. Anthro is just a big thing, too big to really put in smaller groups without upsetting people. If people want to search for certain anthropomorphic images, well then they can just add more words to the search or use different words entirely. And don't force the word FURRY on people, that will just cause more problems.

Skoll
10-25-2012, 11:41 PM
Anthro comes way back before the furry fandom existed as we know it today. Ancient cultures had furries and were part of rituals, you know, people dressed up as animals, believing in their animal self that represents them. And of course deities that were half human and half beast. Those are anthros, can't really redefine something just cause of some bizarre feeling. Seriously. Why is it being overused when it is being used properly?

Though, to make this thing clear: "All furries are anthros, yet not all anthros are furries." That's the reality of the word itself. As aliens, robots, talking objects, animals, etc are anthros. Yet some of them don't fall into the furry fandom.

Nordana
10-26-2012, 01:13 AM
All furries are by definition anthros
I don't believe a tag can be "over used" unless it is use more than necessary in the submission's tag list. One more thing I would like to point out about one of your statements generalizing anthros and furries, "All furries are by definition anthros" is that even tho there is some confusion among those inside and outside the fandom is that NOT all furries are anthros, but some are actually zoomorophs. Zoomorophs is something that are given the attribution animal characteristics or qualities of a god. A werewolf or a demigod would be such an example.

Ransom
10-26-2012, 05:24 AM
Perhaps a better solution would be being able to use certain tags in conjunction with others as a filter device?

For instance, typing "anthro +furry +scaley +scalie" would block all of those things while leaving the remainder of the anthro tag unblocked, so you still see things other things tagged anthro. I think that had been suggestion previously but to my knowledge isn't implemented and if it were that would render my argument moot. I tried to test it out by using "anthro + furry" but it came out as "anthrofurry" and didn't actually do anything.

So you want to block "furry" while leaving "anthro" unblocked? Then just block "furry."

Sneak
10-26-2012, 01:13 PM
Yeah, I think far to many furries misuse the term "anthro" -- I've always argued that. The same goes for feral, IMO. Feral doesn't denote a horse walking on 4 legs. It denotes a wild or untamed animal. That term misuse always bothered me.

Great discussion going here, I'm glad someone brought this up.

Skoll
10-27-2012, 09:47 AM
There are anthropomorphic demigods, also were wolves are included in it. I knew about anthropomorphic creatures way before furries as I've been interested in mythology since early ages. And tons of the demigods were anthropomorphic. And even gods and goddesses. Such the egypctian goddess Hathor, she is an anthropomorphic goddess. It does not exclude gods or goddesses, but by the very fact than an animal such a dog or cat may talk, or have at least a communication level with other creatures, they are anthropomorphic. It's not just the body, but language, behavior, and such, by having just one of them they fall into anthropomorphic.

It's not overused, rather, just use furry for furry fandom searches, as all furries are anthros, but not all anthros are furries.

Although you are right, but at the same time a feral should be on their four legs. As the description says: wild, untamed. The only description to show them are actually animals who use their four limbs to move. You don't call a person feral cause they are wild, you call them wild and yet they still use two limbs to move and other two limbs use them for carrying something. The big difference between humans and animals are how we use the upper limbs.

Zalcoti
10-27-2012, 02:41 PM
Feral is when a domesticated animal returns to the wild, not just because it has four legs and can talk like a person. Also, a wild animal that was never domesticated is not considered feral at all.

If any word is misused here , it's feral.

Fiz
10-27-2012, 02:47 PM
You don't call a person feral cause they are wild, you call them wild and yet they still use two limbs to move and other two limbs use them for carrying something. The big difference between humans and animals are how we use the upper limbs.

Actually no, there is a phenomenon called feral children, so people are occasionally called feral.


Feral is when a domesticated animal returns to the wild, not just because it has four legs and can talk like a person. Also, a wild animal that was never domesticated is not considered feral at all.

If any word is misused here , it's feral.

Any alternate word suggestion for this then?

Sneak
10-27-2012, 03:10 PM
Quad is what I went by before the fandom when I drew horses that weren't furry. I also didn't specify anything until the Fandom. A horse on 4 legs was a horse. A horse on 2 legs was a furry. The fandom is what came up with the term "feral" for a regular animal.

Zalcoti
10-27-2012, 03:10 PM
Any alternate word suggestion for this then?


There shouldn't be any. Anthropomorphic is anthropomorphic whether it's a very realistic dog with human emotions and thoughts or a dog that sings and dances while wearing a pimp suit with plantigrade legs. Here's a link describing what I mean. http://zimeta08.deviantart.com/art/The-Hunt-4-Degrees-of-Anthro-113065262 I use this a lot, and other people use this categorization a lot to describe the levels of anthro.

Feral just doesn't sit right since not all animals can be called feral to begin with, and the ones that can, well I wouldn't want to be near one.

If people did their own research on what anthropomorphism is and how it is used, we wouldn't be trying to split hairs over this issue.

Sneak
10-27-2012, 03:11 PM
Feral is when a domesticated animal returns to the wild, not just because it has four legs and can talk like a person. Also, a wild animal that was never domesticated is not considered feral at all.

If any word is misused here , it's feral.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who was bothered by this <3

Fiz
10-27-2012, 03:17 PM
Quad is what I went by before the fandom when I drew horses that weren't furry. I also didn't specify anything until the Fandom. A horse on 4 legs was a horse. A horse on 2 legs was a furry. The fandom is what came up with the term "feral" for a regular animal.

This isn't accurate either because not all animals are quadrupeds. Kangaroos, ostriches, penguins, etc. are all bipedal.

Sneak
10-27-2012, 03:21 PM
Well, as I said I really only drew horses and dragons (So I didn't even think about the bipedal animals). I agree with Zapydos. There shouldn't be any distinction. Especially if this is a general artwork site. Feral is a very furry term (also an incorrect one in the way it's used) and people who aren't in the fandom wouldn't know they had to tag their regular animal drawings with anything other than the species represented.

Zalcoti
10-27-2012, 03:27 PM
And to continue my train of thought, as a general website, NOBODY should be forcing furry terms on ANYONE. If people want to use them, then fine. The ones who will be using them will be within the fandom to begin with. Forcing them onto non-furries who just draw anthropomorphic art is just plain rude. Anthro art doesn't revolve around the furry fandom.

Sneak
10-27-2012, 03:29 PM
And to continue my train of thought, as a general website, NOBODY should be forcing furry terms on ANYONE. If people want to use them, then fine. The ones who will be using them will be within the fandom to begin with. Forcing them onto non-furries who just draw anthropomorphic art is just plain rude. Anthro art doesn't revolve around the furry fandom.

Again, very well said. Before I found the fandom I had no idea that I should be notating a drawing of a horse as something other than.... a horse o_o;

RadioCatastrophe
10-27-2012, 04:24 PM
I think labeling creatures that don't fit in Anthropomorphic, Humanoid/Monster/Beast, Human should be labeled with the official term of its category. Like Equine for Horse, Cervine for Deer, and Bovine for Cows

RX-149Dragonite
10-27-2012, 06:50 PM
I should probably add that some of these things have been discussed in other threads

http://forums.weasyl.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?803-Submissions-with-filtered-tags-appearing-in-my-watchbox

http://forums.weasyl.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?1043-Disabling-Tags-edits-from-other-users-Can-see-this-as-being-somewhat-of-a-problem

Roki
10-28-2012, 12:38 PM
I do think that forcing the furry tag on some artists will cause problems; not everyone is going to appreciate that label. That was another reason as to why I was suggesting redefining the anthro tag, because most people won't have a real conniption over that label.

Temrin
10-28-2012, 03:40 PM
The thing is, there is no real way to get everyone to tag things -properly- and people will still tag what they feel their artwork is. When i tag my stuff i always put both Anthro and Furry in it unless it isnt either of those things. Sometimes it will be just anthro with no "furry" and sometimes, for those furries who have legitimate animal characters, and in t he picture is not depicting any kind of human emotion or motivation, then it wont be considered anthro. People will post their tags according to what they approve of, and what they think their art is. Art is an intepretable medium and people may think its something completely different then what the artist made it to be. Thats where forcing specific tags upon people will cause issues.

This has been suggested before, but with people being able to add tags, the artist/uploader should have the option to approve/decline it. Because what it is, is still up to the artist :/ Some people dont want their tags trifled with. Some dont care and want user input. But there should be a difference between The original artists tags, and what might be done by another user. An artist may feel that something someone suggested does make sense, but they might not want it in the tags because it gives a different outlook on their piece that they dont want. So having advanced options so people can choose what they want to happen with their tags, would be extremely helpful : )