Posted under Tags
BUR #16170 has been rejected.
create implication horn_flower -> horn_ornament
create implication horn_piercing -> horn_ornament
create implication horn_bell -> horn_ornament
create implication horn_cover -> horn_ornament
First of several BURs for elaboration and discrimination of horns, antlers and their accessories.
This one just expands the inventory of horn_ornament, and I think should be uncontroversial.
Currently the wikis for horn ribbon and horn bow state that they include antler ribbons and bows. However these tags imply horns and horn ornament, and that explicitly contradicts the wiki for antlers (which says antlers are not horns) and implicitly contradicts the wiki for horn ornament (which implies that it does not cover antler ornaments).
The options I see are:
Updated
BUR #16172 has been rejected.
create alias horn_cover -> horn_covers
create implication single_horn_cover -> horn_covers
To match typical usage of plural tags, e.g. legs, thighhighs and single thighhigh.
Leave both implications on horn ribbon and horn bow, rewrite their wikis to not include antlers; remove horns from antler posts, retag relevant posts antler ribbon, antler bow, antler ornament etc.
I have a preference for this option above all the others
and the 4th option is the only one i am strongly against, since it would make antlers unsearchable
Arcana55 said:
...
This might be a controversial opinion, but the fifth option is making antlers implicate horns. Frankly I never understood why we didn't do this in the first place. IIRC the reason given years ago was "antlers aren't horns IRL", but nobody cares about the biology of horn-like appendages when they're searching for women with animal parts sticking out of their heads, and the fact that we've been tagging stuff like post #6144580 as horns without issue in thousands of posts kinda makes the whole point moot.
BUR #16173 has been rejected.
mass update kicchou_yachie solo dragon_horns -> -dragon_horns
mass update kicchou_yachie solo horns -> -horns antlers
mass update ceres_fauna solo horns -> -horns antlers
Singling out these two characters for comprising a significant portion of the ~2000 posts tagged both horns and antlers.
Some attributes distinguishing horns and antlers aren't easily visible or well-known to artists and taggers, such as antlers being covered by velvet while still growing. However, I think "antlers are branched, horns are not" is a reasonable definition for us. Given that, these two have antlers, not horns.
Arcana55 said:
BUR #16173 has been rejected.
mass update kicchou_yachie solo dragon_horns -> -dragon_horns
mass update kicchou_yachie solo horns -> -horns antlers
mass update ceres_fauna solo horns -> -horns antlersSingling out these two characters for comprising a significant portion of the ~2000 posts tagged both horns and antlers.
Some attributes distinguishing horns and antlers aren't easily visible or well-known to artists and taggers, such as antlers being covered by velvet while still growing. However, I think "antlers are branched, horns are not" is a reasonable definition for us. Given that, these two have antlers, not horns.
post #6183800, post #5624457 are spiked horns, not antlers. It's a drawing-by-drawing case because most artists aren't biologists and aren't going to care about the distinction.
Updated
BUR #16188 has been rejected.
create implication antlers -> horns
create alias antler_ornament -> horn_ornament
I personally disagree with this. I think the difference between horns and antlers is sufficient for them to be treated separately, and furthermore that antlers merits its own set of antler_ornaments tags. But lets see what the consensus is.
nonamethanks said:
FYI even e621, which is far more autistic than us in terms of classification, implies antlers to horns.
I don't think there's an ideal solution to this that will please everyone, but keeping antlers and horns separate only works if you close your eyes and never look at how our posts are tagged.
e621 will implicate literally anything they can. It's almost like a requirement that for a tag to exist there it has to have implications. That's not a model we should strive to follow.
People tagging posts wrong should be hit on the head. Not everything has to be resolved by making insane tag changes.
My point is that despite their semantic autism about every single word, even they still implied one to the other because trying to keep them separate is an exercise in futility.
Ironically, even in japanese antlers are just "branched horns" (枝角).
Talulah said:
No, that's fucking stupid. Antlers have a distinctive shape separate from horns and tagging them horns is absolutely moronic.
Same for goat horns, right?
Frankly, we can come up with all the arguments we want for or against it, but none of them will change that our users have no issue tagging something like post #6160871 or post #5949144 as horns, so unless someone is going to garden antlers vs horns from now until perpetuity, it's a moot point.
nonamethanks said:
Frankly, we can come up with all the arguments we want for or against it, but none of them will change that our users have no issue tagging something like post #6160871 or post #5949144 as horns, so unless someone is going to garden antlers vs horns from now until perpetuity, it's a moot point.
If we follow that reasoning, we might as well alias solo_focus to solo because too many users can’t figure out how to use them. Or abolish solo completely because too many users slap it on posts that obviously have more than one character. And don’t get me started on looking_at_viewer vs facing_viewer. looking_at_viewer closed_eyes solo is a huge mess.
Just because some users misuse a clearly defined and easily distinguishable tag because they don’t bother reading its wiki doesn’t mean we should get rid of it.
Before I started using danbooru it was "obvious" to me that antlers were horns, because I'm not a native english speaker and in my language there's no such distinction, so I never thought of checking the wiki for its definition. I only learned that this website considered them separate after I noticed someone removing the horns tag from some of my posts, and some of my earliest uploads still have both tags (post #2822732 for example).
You can't expect users to read wikis for a case like this. And "anime antlers are a distinct category from anime horns" is not obvious logic, especially if I'm a casual monster girl fan searching for women with horns or horn-like appendages on their heads and couldn't care less if they split at the end or at the base.
The only issue i have with the implication is that i prefer if we keep x-ornament tags specific to antlers and the implication goes against it, that's a minor issue i have, other than that, the antlers tag isn't even 5% the size of horns so it can't dilute horns even for anyone who's strictly fixated on horns without needing to add -antlers to the search.
And I can't see any other potential problem from the implication to be honest
"Cranial appendages', “Headgear”, or possibly "Skull extensions" are the umbrella terms for:
Of course this being fantasy art, we have only appearance.
----
Suggestion 1: Stick to feature's or holder's appearance.
Suggestion 2: Keep it short and descriptive. (what is visible)
As for decorations IMO they should be added only to the root tag, to avoid tag proliferation.
Oh and shouldn't we also count the horns?
Single is handled, but nature has 2 & 4, and 3 or 5 in the past.
----
Note there are also spurs, claws, hooves and tusks ; and they too can hold decorations.
Dammit I spent hours on this again.
Suggestion 3:
The current system is focused on known families.
This is good as it is short and intuitive.
But I suggest to harmonize all wikis to:
Horns of a X/X alt name (X family name), or looking similar.
<usual aspect & traits description>.
Horns of a deer (cervid), or looking similar.
Pair of solid branched structures on the forehead.
May be irregular, flattened, or palmed at junctions.
Either smooth or velvety (live skin), or woody/barky (dead bone).
Worn mostly by males, shed and regrown each year.Eastern dragon horns are similar.
I am not fond of treating antlers as horns, but it is better to have a common root, and "horn" is simple and already an umbrella term for various head prongs.
Horns of a reindeer/caribou, or looking similar.
Like antlers, but generally bigger and worn by females too.
There are many, just because of santa's sled I guess.
Horns of cattle/cow/bull (bos), or looking similar.
Pair of solid pointy projections just above the ears.
Typically stubby, hand to head long, with slow upward/inward curve(s).
Sometimes assymmetrical or much, much bigger.
Either smooth or ridged. Made of keratin on live bone.
Horns of a giraffe, or looking similar.
Solid projections on the skull, mainly above the eyes.
Present: Columnar or conical. Past: also pointy, bulbous or antlers-like.
Made of fur on live bone.
Horns of a goat, or looking similar.
Pair of solid pointy projections on the top of the head.
Medium to thick, non-circular cross-section, size from a hand to 3× the head, curved backward and outward.
Nearly smooth to strongly ringed. Made of keratin on live bone.
Males tend to have more/bigger.sheep horns are similar, but thicker and curlier.
Horns of a sheep/ram, or looking similar.
1 or 2 pair(s) of solid pointy projections on the top of the head.
Thick to very thick, non-circular cross-section, size from nonexistent to 3× the head, strongly curved backward and outward to the point of spiraling back.
Nearly smooth to strongly ringed. Made of keratin on live bone.
Males tend to have more/bigger.goat horns are similar, but thiner and straighter.
I suggest adding:
Horns of an antelope, or looking similar.
Pair of solid pointy projections on the top of the head.
Thin to medium, near-circular cross-section, 1 to 2 head long, in a tight spiral pointing up and a bit to the sides.
Strongly ringed. Made of keratin on live bone.
Horn(s) of a rhinoceros, or looking similar.
Solid pointy projection(s) centered on the muzzle (nose for fore or single, between eyes for aft).
Typically massive, hand to head long, with slight backward curve.
Either smooth or rough, colored gray or brown. Made of mineralized keratin.
These are much more varied, and often require clues from the character's apperance or background to pinpoint a type.
This makes it desirable to update character's wikis with known attributes. It seems good practice anyways.
Horns of a demon, or looking similar.
Come in a wide variety, relies more on the character than the horn's aspect.
Frequently similar to:
- Short cattle horns or 😈 emoticon. Common in simple illustrations and comedy.
- Long sheep horns or goat horns with elaborate curvature. Common in complex illustrations.
If on the forehead and straight, it is probably oni horns.
Horns of a dragon, or looking similar.
Come in a wide variety, relies more on the character than the horn's aspect.
If possible specify eastern dragon horns or western dragon horns instead.
I suggest this split as they tend to be quite different.
eastern dragon <-alias- ryu
Horns of an eastern dragon/ryū, or looking similar.
Generally similar to antlers, but straighter, with less or no forks, and facing back.
Horns of a western dragon, or looking similar.
Generally similar to cattle horns, but strongly patterned, more numerous, and strongly bent forward or backward.
Horns of an oni or eastern ogre, or looking similar.
Single or pair of solid projection(s) on the forehead.
Rather slim and pointy, palm to head long, straight up with slight bend backward.
Smooth, skin-covered or same color as the skin.
There is tendency for onis to have 2 and eastern ogres 1, not sure if it makes sense to split.
The bulk update request #16170 (forum #238162) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.
