Topic: Alias away real life Minecraft species

The bulk update request #12831 is pending approval.

Reason: Aliases all "Minecraft version of real life species" tags to their real life equivalent. These tags are used very inconsistently because there is no TWYS-compatible definition of what counts as a Minecraft version of a creature and lore-wise there is nothing separating a Minecraft animal from its real life counterpart other than the fact that it is made out of cubes, which can easily be interpreted as a simple stylistic choice.

To take wolf_(minecraft) as an example:

post #5522676
This is clearly intended to depict the wolf from Minecraft. It bears strong resemblence to the official model.

post #5986040
This has a similar colour scheme to the pale wolf from Minecraft but otherwise looks like a normal wolf.

post #5326224 post #5960717
No evidence that these are supposed to be related to Minecraft in any way other than the artists uploading them with such tags.

All of these were deemed suitable for the wolf_(minecraft) tag by their uploaders. This clearly demonstrates a problem with the function of these tags. Additionally, there is a precedent for specific depictions of a character not receiving unique tags. The Minecraft animals are specific depictions of real life animals.

At this point, if any consistent rule were to be made on what counts as the Minecraft version of a creature then over a thousand posts would need to be reviewed and edited to make sure they are tagged accurately. To me this is more effort than it's worth. Since there is no clear guideline for what counts as a Minecraft version of a creature, and lore-wise no substantial difference between a Minecraft creature and its real life counterpart, I think the best thing to do about this problem is to simply tag them the same as their real life counterparts.

The bulk update request #12832 is pending approval.

create alias dolphin_(minecraft) (4) -> dolphin (15273)
create alias panda_(minecraft) (4) -> giant_panda (27129)
create alias frog_(minecraft) (5) -> frog (13167)
create alias nautilus_(minecraft) (4) -> nautilus (105)
create alias firefly_(minecraft) (3) -> firefly (757)
create alias crab_(minecraft) (2) -> crab (1977)
create alias penguin_(minecraft) (2) -> penguin (5517)
create alias turtle_(minecraft) (1) -> turtle (9452)

Reason: Part 2, split due to length limit.

It might be better to turn those tags into character tags instead.

thegreatwolfgang said:
It might be better to turn those tags into character tags instead.

They aren't characters though, otherwise pokemon and the like should also be characters

thegreatwolfgang said:
It might be better to turn those tags into character tags instead.

They're not characters, though. There are/can be multiple of them, they're just the game's depiction of a real-life species. I think a better idea would be to have a tag for blocky-style character depictions in general, which can be combined with wolf, fox, etc (and minecraft as needed). Though as pointed out, the current tags are used on normal looking animals and only asserted to be from Minecraft, so they can't be aliased or anything as they are.

donovan_dmc said:
They aren't characters though, otherwise pokemon and the like should also be characters

Pokemon don't have any real-world counterparts. They are literally unique species of their own.

watsit said:
They're not characters, though. There are/can be multiple of them, they're just the game's depiction of a real-life species. I think a better idea would be to have a tag for blocky-style character depictions in general, which can be combined with wolf, fox, etc (and minecraft as needed). Though as pointed out, the current tags are used on normal looking animals and only asserted to be from Minecraft, so they can't be aliased or anything as they are.

That's the thing though. What is the exact tagging criteria for the tags?
The tags currently functions more like a specific character appearance tag rather than a broad species tag.

I can imagine if the blocky-shaped wolf was entirely reskinned with a custom OC skin, it wouldn't be tagged as wolf_(minecraft). It'd be tagged generically as wolf and maybe Minecraft-styled.
The wiki for wolf_(minecraft) even goes as far as to describe what the "species" would looks like, even having separate variants listed.
If every blocky-shaped wolf gets tagged with wolf_(minecraft) regardless of character design, then what is separating it with other blocky-shaped wolves from other franchises?

On the other hand, if we had removed wolf_(minecraft) as a tag, how would I be able to find the distinct wolf design seen on post #5986040? And no, pale_wolf_(minecraft) is not going to be an option.

thegreatwolfgang said:
It might be better to turn those tags into character tags instead.

there are existing characters anywhere that are specifically based on minecraft's interpretation of mob species i.e this character from artfight.net that i randomly received from searching minecraft tags. hell, there's more oc mobs that isn't only a wolf.

so treating minecraft mobs like characters in equivalency to furry-irrelevant boorus treat pokemon as character tags is a recipe for disaster

thegreatwolfgang said:
That's the thing though. What is the exact tagging criteria for the tags?

"I say it's a minecraft critter" seems to be the primary criteria. Sometimes they'll be blocky, sometimes not, sometimes they'll have a specific color pattern (which aren't strictly unique, and there's multiple variations of, so could be unknowingly used without intentionally referencing minecraft), sometimes not. Like, these are all fox_(minecraft):
post #5220677 post #5056131 post #3825894
and they look nothing alike. Different colors, different forms, and one post doesn't have anything that looks Minecraft-related at all.

thegreatwolfgang said:
I can imagine if the blocky-shaped wolf was entirely reskinned with a custom OC skin, it wouldn't be tagged as wolf_(minecraft). It'd be tagged generically as wolf and maybe Minecraft-styled.
If every blocky-shaped wolf gets tagged with wolf_(minecraft) regardless of character design, then what is separating it with other blocky-shaped wolves from other franchises?

Which is why I suggest having a tag for blocky characters in general. Something like blocky_character which can be combined with wolf and minecraft as needed, rather than blocky_<species> for every potential species or restricting wolf_(minecraft) to only blocky depictions from Minecraft.

thegreatwolfgang said:
On the other hand, if we had removed wolf_(minecraft) as a tag, how would I be able to find the distinct wolf design seen on post #5986040?

grey_fur+brown_face or brown_snout or something. As it is, wolf_(minecraft) contains many posts that feature a different design:
post #5761479 (completely dark grey without the brown on the face)
post #5601755 (completely brown)
post #5551251 (completely white/light grey)
and more similar examples.

Coming back to this now that some Hytale related artworks are starting to show up. Hytale is a voxel game, very similar to Minecraft. Like Minecraft, it has some real life animals.

post #6126223
This is a fox.

post #6121429
This is a rat.

So, should the Hytale renditions of these animals should have their own tags? Or more broadly, should renditions of real life animals from video games or other media have their own tags?

For the record, there is already a precedent for specific renditions/stylisations of real life animals being aliased away. See all the mobian_* tags which were aliased to their real life equivalents, and mobian itself which was aliased to sonic_the_hedgehog_(series).

The practical issue this presents is consistently tagging video game species like this fragments tags, i.e. someone who wants to see foxes would need to search ~fox ~fox_(minecraft) fox_(hytale) if they don't mind seeing foxes from those games. Additionally, as pointed out in this thread, for games like Minecraft and Hytale it is hard to define consistent TWYS-compatible criteria for when these tags are applicable.

This sounds like it might be a situation lore tags could fix. Essentially, super on-model minecraft/hytale/other voxel game animals would be simply tagged as the species they are, and then you'd use lore tags to imply they're meant to be the in-game version of the animal.

Taking this post as an example: https://e621.net/posts/5522676
The wolf would be tagged as wolf and minecraft_wolf_(lore) (or if you don't want to make a million lore tags, minecraft_creature_(lore) or minecraft_animal_(lore)).

Same thing with this: https://e621.net/posts/6126223
You would tag it as red_fox and hytale_animal_(lore)

Alternatively, you could make a tag such as voxel_style and use that as a generic term for any animal that is drawn in a blocky/voxel like style. Or you could alias all *_(minecraft) tags (and eventually *_(hytale)) to the blocky tag?

Just a few ideas that came to mind.

goat_boy9 said:
This sounds like it might be a situation lore tags could fix.

Like the thousands of other non-TWYS things people try to shove into the lore category, this is not what the lore category is for
The lore category is not a dumping ground for anything not strictly TWYS

donovan_dmc said:
Like the thousands of other non-TWYS things people try to shove into the lore category, this is not what the lore category is for

The issue is that it's not always visible though. Like EightOfLakes brought up, there's also examples where the blocky style is nowhere to be found yet they're still tagged as being from Minecraft, which is TWYK. However I do get your point.

In that case it might be better to do the alternative I suggested which is to alias all the *_(minecraft) tags to something like blocky or voxel_style and make it so you can't tag them specifically like that unless it's a Minecraft-original species (creepers, piglins, etc. for example)

Also I mean, if specifying the series is that important to them then they can use the minecraft or hytale copyright tags to do that inherently.

Also, my example was probably bad. If you wanted to keep it strictly TWYS then the *_(minecraft) tags could stay, and the minecraft_animal_(lore) tag could be reserved exclusively for cases where it's not visually blocky/apparent such as https://e621.net/posts/5960717 or https://e621.net/posts/5986040

goat_boy9 said:
In that case it might be better to do the alternative I suggested which is to alias all the *_(minecraft) tags to something like blocky or voxel_style and make it so you can't tag them specifically like that unless it's a Minecraft-original species (creepers, piglins, etc. for example)

Bad idea because there are already plenty of posts in the "minecraft animal" tags that don't feature a blocky/voxel art style whatsoever. If a tag for a block art style is necessary it would need to be added to posts manually. Aliasing them to their real world equivalents makes more sense because it doesn't introduce mistagging, e.g. all Minecraft wolves are wolves.

eightoflakes said:
Bad idea because there are already plenty of posts in the "minecraft animal" tags that don't feature a blocky/voxel art style whatsoever. If a tag for a block art style is necessary it would need to be added to posts manually. Aliasing them to their real world equivalents makes more sense because it doesn't introduce mistagging, e.g. all Minecraft wolves are wolves.

Yeah, that's fair. In that case, I think I like Watsit's suggestion the best:

watsit said:

Which is why I suggest having a tag for blocky characters in general. Something like blocky_character which can be combined with wolf and minecraft as needed, rather than blocky_<species> for every potential species or restricting wolf_(minecraft) to only blocky depictions from Minecraft.

We actually already have the blocky tag, though it's not used very much. I could see adding a blocky_character tag that implicates blocky. Having a duplicate species tag for every single animal that just so happens to be in Minecraft is a bit much so I agree with aliasing them away, but there does need to be something to replace it.

The argument about the mobian tags convinced me.

Idk why we're talking about lore and style tags when copyright tags are right there. We don't need a wolf_(alpha_and_omega) tag- be it species, character, or lore, because copyright tags exist.

regsmutt said:
The argument about the mobian tags convinced me.

Idk why we're talking about lore and style tags when copyright tags are right there. We don't need a wolf_(alpha_and_omega) tag- be it species, character, or lore, because copyright tags exist.

Well, with just the copyright tag you do kind of run into the problem of people tagging something with Minecraft on what looks like an otherwise ordinary animal > someone comes along later and "corrects" it to remove the tag.
The one advantage the *_(minecraft) tags have right now is that it's unambiguous why they're there. However they in themselves are prone to misuse both in the positive and negative sense, which is why we're having this discussion to begin with.

goat_boy9 said:
Well, with just the copyright tag you do kind of run into the problem of people tagging something with Minecraft on what looks like an otherwise ordinary animal

That's what happens now. Look at the examples above, with posts tagged fox_(minecraft) or wolf_(minecraft) on what looks like typical anthro or feral foxes or wolves. Similarly, something can look like a "Minecraft style" fox with the blocky voxel appearance, but is from a completely different game. The problem is Minecraft animals are just normal animals, that may or may not be depicted with a blocky voxel appearance reminiscent of (but not unique to) the game.

watsit said:
That's what happens now. Look at the examples above, with posts tagged fox_(minecraft) or wolf_(minecraft) on what looks like typical anthro or feral foxes or wolves. Similarly, something can look like a "Minecraft style" fox with the blocky voxel appearance, but is from a completely different game. The problem is Minecraft animals are just normal animals, that may or may not be depicted with a blocky voxel appearance reminiscent of (but not unique to) the game.

Yeah, for sure. It can go both ways, with people false positive tagging it and also false negative tagging it (ie. it is supposed to have the minecraft tag but someone removes it). That's why I think you'd need to have something to at least support it if you chose to alias them away. Neither solution is perfect, but at least if you alias them it doesn't split the tags up like EightOfLakes said.

goat_boy9 said:
Yeah, for sure. It can go both ways, with people false positive tagging it and also false negative tagging it (ie. it is supposed to have the minecraft tag but someone removes it). That's why I think you'd need to have something to at least support it if you chose to alias them away. Neither solution is perfect, but at least if you alias them it doesn't split the tags up like EightOfLakes said.

As far as I was aware copyright tags are similar to species tags in that it's largely word-of-the-artist so long as it seems at least somewhat plausible.

regsmutt said:
As far as I was aware copyright tags are similar to species tags in that it's largely word-of-the-artist so long as it seems at least somewhat plausible.

Only the general category is really strict with TWYS, everything else is practically TWYK within reason

donovan_dmc said:
Only the general category is really strict with TWYS, everything else is practically TWYK within reason

Oh, well in that case there's absolutely no reason to keep *_(minecraft) around. You can imply that entirely though the Minecraft tag. The fact that mobian was aliased away means there's precedent for it too.

This BUR highlights a problem (tagging posts inspired by Minecraft animals is subjective) and presents a solution (alias away Minecraft species tags). The thing is that solution doesn’t actually solve the problem.

Take any of the dubious examples given. Even if the wolf_(minecraft) tag didn’t exist users would still need to decide if the Minecraft tag fit. It’s not a matter of fragmenting tags either. If we implicate instead of alias then people wanting to see all wolves Minecraft or otherwise can just search wolf and it works out.

The real crux of this BUR is tag bloat. Do we really need a tag for every animal that appears in Minecraft or any other game with many having just a few dozen posts? For the people using these tags would searching wolf Minecraft instead be good enough despite some false positives compared to a dedicated tag? I think given previous precedent as well as what precedent keeping these tags would set we can afford to get rid of them, though I have the whole Minecraft tag blacklisted so I don’t have a dog in this race one way or another.

chair said:
Take any of the dubious examples given. Even if the wolf_(minecraft) tag didn’t exist users would still need to decide if the Minecraft tag fit.

That's not a significant issue; minecraft would be tagged if anything from minecraft is visible. The issue isn't whether the artist intended to depict something from Minecraft for the minecraft tag to apply, but that a specific tag for each animal species in the game isn't useful since <species>_(minecraft) doesn't say anything about how the animal looks in the image. It may or may not be blocky, it may or may not have a color pattern from the game, and it may or may not be feral.

Even if there was a massive cleanup and a restriction placed to use the tags only when it specifically looks similar to the game, the blocky/voxel style isn't unique to Minecraft, and Minecraft doesn't give them a unique color pattern (here's the various colors that Minecraft's wolves can have, for example; they're pretty generic/common). So even in the best case of heavily policing the tag, a user searching the tag will get different depictions regardless, and end up missing depictions that are similar but happen to not be from Minecraft.

Using the species and minecraft tags separately in a search is likely more useful since those two tags are more likely to be tagged reliably than <species>_(minecraft) tags. For anything more specific, you're better off using tags that more directly specify what you want, instead of using <species>_(minecraft) which means different things to different people.