post #533339 is definitely mermaid but not monster_girl because that's not a girl. And neither is post #511051, because that's a costume. I don't think mermaid -> monster_girl works.
Posted under General
post #533339 is definitely mermaid but not monster_girl because that's not a girl. And neither is post #511051, because that's a costume. I don't think mermaid -> monster_girl works.
Judging from what I've seen in this thread, implying that a mermaid is a monster doesn't seem to work for all contexts.
I think this is something that's just gonna have be controversial; so we should rely on judgement calls, and make the distinction between what we consider is a "monster (girl)" or not, and tag appropriately.
All in all, I don't think we should create this implication.
ds2096 said:
post #533339 is definitely mermaid but not monster_girl because that's not a girl.
I guess the argument was that it's merman, but damn I do not want to get into gender dividing these so you have a point.
And neither is post #511051, because that's a costume. I don't think mermaid -> monster_girl works.
That's what I was getting at with referencing post #491959, I think. Not that it's a costume there (not familiar enough with the show to know, but I assume it isn't), but rather than the visual effect is just so not monstrous... I suppose the argument against the costume thing would be "well she's cosplay a monster_girl then" but... yeah, I'm considering reversing even this one.
Looking at the series in Wikipedia, I can only assume that they only have fish parts when they are in the water.
jxh2154 said:
I guess the argument was that it's merman, but damn I do not want to get into gender dividing these so you have a point.
If we don't care enough to tag mermen differently, we don't care enough about the incorrect effects of the implication. The only thing is whether or not we want to change the term "monster girl" itself into something gender-neutral.
That's what I was getting at with referencing post #491959, I think. Not that it's a costume there (not familiar enough with the show to know, but I assume it isn't), but rather than the visual effect is just so not monstrous...
That is inconsequential. As has been said before, it's not the question of how cute the end effect looks. Some goo girls are cute like all hell, but they still are monster girls. Similarly, if you were cosplaying an arachne, you'd be cosplaying a monster girl and the tag would apply.
葉月 said: Similarly, if you were cosplaying an arachne, you'd be cosplaying a monster girl and the tag would apply.
As I brought up in the very next sentence after your quote stopped.
But I still don't see a problem with having people do this manually. Implications don't have to be perfect, I agree with that much, but we were to push this through we would indeed need to make monster_girl gender neutral like you note. Meh.
Necrobumping for mermaid and the following implications:
bee_girl -> insect_girl
spider_girl -> insect_girl
insect_girl -> monster_girl
dragon_girl -> monster_girl
sheep_girl -> monster_girl
goo_girl -> monster_girl
harpy -> monster_girl
lamia -> monster_girl
Since the monster_girl tag seems to be forgotten a lot when people tag these specific monster girl types, I think the implications are worth it. The gender issue mentioned above is insignificant considering that posts depict pretty much exclusively girls and that we already tag them as *_girl anyway (centaur and satyr being the only masculine nouns).
The monster_girl tag we use is for half-human/half-monster girl as depicted in post #113417.
A lot of *animal*_girl fall (or can fall) into the "non-monster girls type B" category.
S1eth said:
A lot of *animal*_girl fall (or can fall) into the "non-monster girls type B" category.
In such cases I'd argue that they shouldn't have been tagged *animal*_girl in the first place. This doesn't affect the validity of the implications IMHO.
I'd be opposed to the implications of insect_girl and sheep_girl -> monster_girl.
Insect_girl in my mind can cover things that can be outside of the monster_girl categorization, the same for sheep_girl (as well as every other animal_girl classification). I recognize there are cases that would qualify for monster_girl, but the tagging should be manually done, not automatic for every case, since not every case is a monster girl.
Also noted post #1163248, which is tagged mermaid and monster_girl, but the mermaid tag refers to the costume, which is not being worn.
I'm also of the mind that we ought to just leave this for manual tagging. I know that will create ambiguous cases, or missed tags, but that's better than a blanket implication I guess.
Can we get rid of mermaid -> monster_girl implication then? The reasons are already stated in this thread.
It would make more sense to me to remove the mermaid tag from post #1163248.
The problem is not in post #1163248, but in the implication itself. mermaid shouldn't imply monster_girl for the very same reasons other similar tags discussed just recently shouldn't do it.
Although you are right about post #1163248, mermaid tag should be removed from it.
MyrMindservant said:
The problem is not in post #1163248, but in the implication itself. mermaid shouldn't imply monster_girl for the very same reasons other similar tags discussed just recently shouldn't do it.
Apart from the insignificant issue of monster girl gender and NWF Renim's objections for insect_girl and sheep_girl, there don't seem to be any reasons why this implication should be removed and the rest of the implications shouldn't be made. Unless there are examples of lamias and slime girls that aren't monster girls or something.
Maybe it's more of an issue with the technical definition of 'mermaid' but it seems strange to have the monster girl tag on images such as post #390392 and post #1041747 or mecha-musume type mermaids such as post #220227.