I see the objections to monster girl implications like spider girl in threads like topic #8225 and topic #6110, but surely there are a few safe cases. It's just really odd that mermaid is the only one that gets one.

What about centaur, lamia, scylla, and goo girl?

Wouldn't an issue be that monster_girl is gender specific, but centaur at least is gender neutral, so male centaur could appear under the tag. I'm not sure on lamia or scylla, there is apparently one lamia image with a male though (post #1335316). Goo_girl at least specifies a gender, so I don't see an issue with having it implicate monster_girl.

Also you might want to change forum #8225 and forum #6110 to the new topic #8225 and topic #6110 formats.

A male lamia is certainly nothing I could have foreseen.

I suppose a better question would be whether or not we could alias monster girl to something gender-neutral like monster hybrid, and then implicate all of the above to that.

Well, we have monster_boy, but if we want to just have a single, gender-neutral tag, I would rather have monster_person than "hybrid." I prefer sticking with two tags and just remove any implications to monster_girl.

I don't know which would be better, going with a split between gender or going with a unified gender neutral approach. It somewhat reminds me in the past where I argued about reinstating the animal-people tags (don't intend to delve to much into that here), but it also ran into the issue of using a gender split that sounded more normal (cat_girl/cat_boy, animal_girl/animal_boy) or something that sounded somewhat awkward (cat_person/ animal_person).

A gender neutral approach may work, but I think in the end at least one of the gender specific tags would remain. For example most of the monster people we have are female, so even if we converted the tag over to monster_person I believe we would still end up having to retain monster_boy to allow for finding these much rare cases of male monster people. It also might be preferable to simple retain the two as separate, since that would enable being able to search up images that contain both male and female monster people together (not much here right now though monster_boy monster_girl).

On the other hand hand we may also be some weird things in the future, like the succubus from the manga Himitsu no Akuma-chan, where the succubus is a trap instead of a female (pixiv #30489590 and scanlation link ). Hard wiring gender to some of these tags, despite the monster being originally a specific gender may cause headaches with oddballs like that.

I guess the potentially cluttering approach would be retaining the gender specific tags, but put a gender neutral tag above them that they both implicate. You could then have the specific monster people types implicate the gender neutral version while retaining the gender specific subtypes for usage as well. Its kind of a cheap "we'll just get a bigger box" approach, but outside of it being more complicated, I think it retains most the search and tagging benefits of both approaches (you'll still have to manually tag monster_gender and monster-type separately, but there is at least something that catches them all).

Anyways, that's my rambling thoughts on this.

I'm also not sure on which approach would be best for the umbrella tags, but I agree that there's no real harm in implicating at least the gender-specific types to monster_girl. In topic #8225 I had suggested the following:

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

We could leave lamia and harpy out if things like post #1335316 or post #923647 are a problem, though technically they're still gender-specific terms referring only to females.

Did Fred1515's suggestions. I think the implications can survive the one or two very odd corner cases. They're sort of like... genderswapped monster_girls?

I request the removal of some of the implications here. This thread focuses only on the definition of _girl and _boy tags, but people completely forget that some of these tags don't qualify for monster_girl.

Remove implication sheep_girl -> monster_girl
Remove implication dragon_girl -> monster_girl
Remove implication insect_girl -> monster_girl

All of these are (more often than not) of the 10% variant.
Examples:
sheep girl post #511672
dragon girl post #792246
spider girl (insect girl) post #227754 / post #1279014

Edit: And on the harpy tag, if we allow characters with both arms and additional wings on the back, such as post #536488, we cannot implicate that to monster_girl either. If they don't have wings as arms, they should at least have visible bird legs.

Well this sort of implies we can't implicate many if any of them, right? Since whether its a "monster" or not depends heavily on how it's depicted. I will remove the three you mentioned for now.

As much as I'm not fond of "*_person* tags, I think that something like monster person, monster hybrid, half monster, or demihuman would work fine.

bee_girl implicates monster_girl even though the implication is not listed at /tag_implications?search[name_matches]=monster_girl

I noticed when I had trouble removing the monster girl tag from post #1009620

I think that it would be useful to have some sort of root implication for all 'demihumans', if that's a good word for them.

S1eth said:

bee_girl implicates monster_girl even though the implication is not listed at /tag_implications?search[name_matches]=monster_girl

I noticed when I had trouble removing the monster girl tag from post #1009620

As a temporary fix until the bug is fixed, this can be done:

remove implication bee_girl -> insect_girl
create implication bee_girl -> insect_girl

Toks said:

As a temporary fix until the bug is fixed, this can be done:

remove implication bee_girl -> insect_girl
create implication bee_girl -> insect_girl

Did this.