I also feel that fictional-vs-real shouldn’t be a factor. A prime example of this is dragons - dragons are not real creatures (at least not the big, winged, fire-breating kind), but they’re still one of the largest species in the Scalie fandom. It wouldn’t make sense for the Scalie tag to feature stuff like lizards and alligators, but exclude dragons simply because dragons are fictional.
IMO “scalie” should be a tag that is above “reptile”, so that fictional reptile-like species are not to be tagged as “reptile”, just as “scalie”. In other words “scalie” would be for any species with scales, “reptile” would be for real species with scales (and their hybrids if they are based on a identifiable real species). Same for avians.
I think if something has a specific tag (like pikachu) and an overall category (like pokemon) then further categorization may not be strictly necessary. Certainly I see no reason to tag the closest equivalent real-world species on that any more than I would expect their pokemon type to be tagged as well - since furbooru isn’t specifically tailored to the intricacies of that series, it’s not strictly necessary.
Species should not be tagged, as species is something very, very specific, at the lowest level of classification. “Fish” is not a species, “shark” in sot a species, only “great white shark” is a species. Same for other things, “snake” is not a species, “common European viper” is a species. For this reason “sea serpent” right now implies “snake” but it should not imply “reptile” as this is fictional creature.
As for scalies, furries, avians, etc: being that they are such overarching aspects of the fandom, I would rather see that level of categorization happen outside the tagging system entirely. For instance, rather than making every winged creature tag in the world imply avian, perhaps we could make a wiki to help sort and categorize the various tags that either directly fall under that umbrella, or are related to tags in that category (such as behaving like a bird).
I strong disagree. We can’t expect people who want to for example see all the porn that inclues avians to search for some long list of species every time. Tags should be USEFUL. I can definitely see the use of one common tag for many different but similar things - it eliminates the need to list all those things to see them.
@CruFox
Don’t we already have tags like
dinosaur,
reptile, and
dragon? And would you
really apply the
avian tag to feathered dinosaurs like this?
You are right, maybe just using feathers=avian is not the best way to go. Just as I I wouldn’t tag a pegasus “avian” just because it has feathers on wings. But if the character had feathers AND a beak, then sure. Some dinosaurs had beaks:
I think the head is the most important part when determining if a species is scalie/avian or not. Griffons have bird heads and they are avians. Feathered dragons don’t have bird heads and I wouldn’t tag them as avians, also pegasi. That dinosaur from your example has a reptile-like head.
Perhaps the better question should be, how many supertags does one species need? If it were totally up to me, I’d say one would suffice.
Currently “gryphon” only implies “avian” and not “mammal”. Because the head is the most important part then the species should maybe get the supertag tag describes mainly the head of that character? So “pegasus” -> “mammal” and not “avian”, because it has clearly a mammalian head.
mammal and reptile and so on represent classes in the animal kingdom, we need not go up and down the taxonomic tree like e621. Like, I don’t know about you, but I’d rather not have to search for “chiropteran” just to find pictures of a fruit bat.
As I wrote above, I think “reptile” should be only for real reptiles because “scalie exist”. “mammal” could be for both real and fictional because there is not good word that would encompass both real and fictional mammals.
I also don’t have anything against the idea of just letting users tag extra, relevant species on their own uploads, if they see fit. If it turns out that 99% of users do end up tagging pidgey as “bird” then maybe we’ll have reason to revisit making it an implication, but we won’t know unless we give them a chance.[/bq] I would just make it imply “avian” and not “bird”.
There’s also a possibility that people following the reptile tag might not appreciate it if their watchlist is filled with kobolds.
This is exactly why “reptile” would be only for real species and “scalie” for both real and fictional species like kobolds.
Personally, I’m all in favour of a consistent tagging system, which is the big thing I want to push. If there exist ‘avian’ and ‘scalie’ tags that cover both real and fictional species possessed of feathers and scales respectively, then I’d say there should be ones that apply to furred and other species. Likewise, if fictional furred/mammalian-looking species are to imply and be tagged ‘mammal’, then fictional reptilian and avian species should likewise be tagged ‘reptile’ and ‘bird’.
There is no term that currently functions in the furry fandom for fictional mammals and using just “furry” would be a very bad idea as this is the name of the fandom, which inclues avians and scalies too.
As it stands at the moment, ‘argonian’ does not imply ‘reptile’, but ‘sergal’ implies ‘mammal’. In fact, as far as I can tell, at the moment ‘sergal’ is the only furred original species that implies ‘mammal’. ‘protogen’, ‘ottsel’, and ‘lombax’, examples of fictional furred species both fan-created and from established media, do not imply any kind of super-tag, though they probably should.
“Ottsel” and “lombax” probably should imply mammal, “protogen” - i’m not sure, maybe. but they have machine heads and I stated that I fell like head is the important bit.
If there’s a need to separate out fictional species, then in all honesty it might be easier to enforce ‘fictional species’ instead of or in addition to ‘original species’, rather than coming up with supertags for each of the basic body coverings. But again, I’m not pushing that particular agenda; what I’m pushing is simply consistency across the board.
This tag would serve little purpose for people who want to see similar tings. “Fictional species” can be anything, a fish-like creature, a goo creature, a bird-like creature, a worm, a living crystal, a sergal. This won’t solve anything.
I did at one point suggest that, rather than ‘scalie’, there be a ‘reptilian’ supertag, along with ‘mammalian’, the existing ‘avian’, ‘insectoid’, the existing ‘humanoid’, and ‘piscine’ for fish-like creatures.
Using “reptilian” instead of “scalie” is inventing new names for things that already have a name, others are introducing names that nobody uses on their own.
There are also fish and other things that live underwater and e621 uses supertag “
marine “ for them so maybe this should be considered too. Personally I’ve never used this tag so I don’t have opinion on this, I would just call a fish-like creature a fish unless it looks like a scalie or mammal that just happens to live in water.
Then why not tag reptile-like creatures as reptiles? This is the inconsistency thing that’s bugging me so much.
Because they have their own name in the furry fandom - “scalie”, similarly a dolphin that lives underwater is still a mammal.
“Marine” could be used for things that are found only in water though - like corals, fish, sponges, jellyfish.
