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.

BUR #31947 has been rejected.

create alias no_humans -> no_humanoids

4 years later, this is still an issue. I am constantly cleaning up this tag, and I don't even mean borderline cases, I'm talking furries with massive tits and robots that look like human women and monster girls and everything else you could imagine.

Just a small selection of posts I had to remove the tag from: post #7939736, post #7950292, post #7946859, post #7118441, post #7167514, post #7234396, post #7550618, post #8053500... I could keep going for hours.

People don't understand what this tag means. It's a bad tag name and no amount of dmails and wiki writing is going to fix that. If people don't like no_humanoids, even something like no_people would be an improvement. Having a tag that says no humans that actually doesn't mean no humans and expecting people to understand that is stupid.

My stance on this issue is the same as it was four years ago. Is no_humanoids a perfect name? No. However, it's far better than no_humans.

If you ask somebody who doesn't know about no_humans "does post #8099445 have no humans in it", they will (completely understandably) answer "yes" every time. "no humans" doesn't just imply no humans; outside of literally just Danbooru (and Gelbooru), it's the only meaning that phrase has. When hundreds of thousands of posts without any humans don't actually qualify for the tag named no_humans, then that tag has a shit name.

evazion said:

No humans means no people, where a person is anything you would tag as 1girl or 1boy. Furries count as people for this purpose.

The original purpose of this tag was to find posts without any people ... the word humans wasn't meant to be taken too literally here.

I really don't like how every time we have an ambiguous or misused tag, we end up renaming it to some worse-sounding alternative. See: all the legwear/headwear/footwear/eyewear tags, <color>_theme tags, hip focus, text focus. We've done this with a bunch of tags and all it's given us is uglier tag names.

For some tags, I wholeheartedly agree. A majority of the *wear tags, for example, were a terrible idea that didn't really fix anything. However, we're not talking about something that only gets a few mistags each month here. As Trouble Windows mentioned, no_humans is constantly being mistagged on anything that isn't purely human. If we can change these constant mistags from "every single kind of non-human humanoid" to "mostly mecha and taurs", then that would be a vast improvement.

Given the many necessary clauses this tag has, whatever name we settle on is always going to have some blind spots. That's unavoidable. However, no_humans is one of the worst options we could choose, as its blind spots are literally anything that isn't 100% homo sapiens. While no_humanoids might not be the most intuitive name for the tag, it sure beats the aggressively unintuitive no_humans.

evazion said:

No humans means no people [...]. The original purpose of this tag was to find posts without any people

So, just to be clear, is no people an undesirable tag name? It seems like a more obvious choice to me than no humanoids.

ElGranFracaso said:

So, just to be clear, is no people an undesirable tag name? It seems like a more obvious choice to me than no humanoids.

No people could work too, I believe the issue is just that people would continue applying it to furries on the more animalistic side of the spectrum and humanoid robots because "they aren't people". Probably not to the same extent as now, but I can definitely see it happening.

Humanoid is a lot easier to define, as it's a body shape: a humanoid is naturally bipedal, has a torso with arms and shoulders - people might debate whether post #8246509 or post #8233766 or post #7368744 count as people, but their body structures are unquestionably humanoid.

ElGranFracaso said:

So, just to be clear, is no people an undesirable tag name? It seems like a more obvious choice to me than no humanoids.

It's just as Trouble Windows said. To many users, the word "people" only refers to humans, meaning we'd be back at square one.

This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 45 days.

The bulk update request #31947 (forum #309253) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

Trouble_Windows said:

BUR #31947 has been rejected.

create alias no_humans -> no_humanoids

4 years later, this is still an issue. I am constantly cleaning up this tag, and I don't even mean borderline cases, I'm talking furries with massive tits and robots that look like human women and monster girls and everything else you could imagine.

Just a small selection of posts I had to remove the tag from: post #7939736, post #7950292, post #7946859, post #7118441, post #7167514, post #7234396, post #7550618, post #8053500... I could keep going for hours.

People don't understand what this tag means. It's a bad tag name and no amount of dmails and wiki writing is going to fix that. If people don't like no_humanoids, even something like no_people would be an improvement. Having a tag that says no humans that actually doesn't mean no humans and expecting people to understand that is stupid.

This was near universally upvoted and people are still tagging things like post #8485424 and post #8486826 and post #8493707 as no humans, btw.