blindVigil said:
While I don't like that it was done without discussion, we already make a distinction between animals, monsters, and everything else, and even prior to the recent edits, animal focus's wiki seemed to imply that it was intended specifically for animals.
I'm not really sure how pokemon fit into this, but it doesn't seem right to tag something like https://danbooru.donmai.us/posts/7648523 as animal focus when that is definitely not an animal. In fact, it seems like we largely don't. While animal_focus pokemon returns about 8,000 results, pokemon no_humans returns 38,000.
Basically, I'm not all that opposed to this change. It would actually make it easier to find posts focused on things other than people or animals. You wouldn't be able to find all of those things with a single tag, sure, but you practically couldn't do that before, so I personally don't think that user did anything illogical.
Animal focus referring to pokemon was one the first things I was told about as I was confused about which "animal" type tags applied to pokemon, I think it might have even been multiple people telling me but zet was definitely one of them and obst and zapdos are considered the resident pokemon experts here. @zetsubousensei @Obst @AngryZapdos what do you think of this? Personally call it getting used to it but I am against it because it runs into the problem it is trying to solve in that there isn't a way to just search for well, real and fictional animals.
The search is impossible and then you run into the issue of "is this a monster or creature" which seems to be based on "is it scary" which is very subjective and would just lead to a ton of "is this a creature or a monster post #7684354" "is this big black dragon character who is canonically friendly still a monster if in this artstyle?" type arguments. A possible solution is implication to central tag. I don't really like the creature tag but I kind of see what it is going for so were somewhat out of names, "beast focus" seems counterintuitive as it might have "scary" connotations going by previous logic. I don't want something like "non human focus" both because that would technically apply to scenery and still lifes pictures and because then you get sentient gingerbread men and robots into what used to be animal focus which is just.... no. Whatever central tag was chosen could potentially be implied to that but that is a rather long chain.
Then there's the question of other *_animal type tags some of which we already have Pokemon versions off. Do we want separate laying_on_animal, laying_on_pokemon, laying_on_monster, laying_on_creature, holding_animal, holding_pokemon, holding_monster, holding_creature, riding_animal, riding_pokemon, riding_monster, riding_creature (Okay the riding one might have more merit due to tropes like riding dinosaurs and such) tags? and should they have their own action umbrella tags?
I'm not really sure how pokemon fit into this, but it doesn't seem right to tag something like https://danbooru.donmai.us/posts/7648523 as animal focus when that is definitely not an animal.
Rayquaza is certainly not a human either. I want it in animal focus or animate inanimate object either for the reasons outlined above. when you say not an animal are you referring to Rayquaza not being real or looking somewhat mechanical? Griffins and jackalopes and unicorns aren't real either but I don't think anyone would disagree with them being animals.
c_spl said:
I think No Humans is just tagged for most Pokemon only posts out of habit and/or assumption, even though it shouldn't be used for most Humanoid Pokemon.
This shit includes Drowzee and Clobbopus.
