Posts

@Gyro  
I did those bird ones, but all types of gryphons should probably also imply feline, as the basic “gryphon” does it.

@LightningBolt  
Why not? It’s like canine or feline. Pokemon relate to their base evolution

@Gyro  
No.

eeveelution should probably have a species flag

peacock gryphon -> peacock & gryphon & avian  
zebra finch gryphon -> finch & gryphon & avian & zebra finch  
zebra finch -> finch & bird & avian  
finch -> bird & avian

@Gyro  
both done

As for dogbone/xenoforge, also alias Twitter name to FA name (which is also the artist tag name on e621):
 
artist:thexenoforge -> artist:xenoforge
 
EDIT:
 
Alias, moved accounts (proof) :
 
artist:LAG. -> artist:tepidtea

secret life of pets → the secret life of pets

toad -> Amphibian

couvere -> Avian, Original species
 
One of these things  
https://www.furaffinity.net/view/27234996/

Stripes  
spots  
mottling
 
We don’t really need anything more complex than that.

@Gyro  
Done

artist:shadowh511 -> artist:cadey
 
Aliasing my old username to my current username.

Also oc:gyro feather has a broken link. seaward skies should be :/tags/oc-colon-seaward+skies

I’d rather them not imply vore. Just mention them in the description if anything.

Updated post to remove pica in favor of “Object Swallowing.”
 
The most problematic part is “imminent vore” and “mawplay” which I dont think ought to imply vore still, for consistency.

I agree with most of the suggestions in OP.
 
Although I don’t think that object vore needs to be aliased to pica. Just leave it at object vore.
 
 
Also will put my support to mawplay not implying vore.

@Gyro  
done

Iunno. It’s something I’ve never seen as an issue before. With the other cases I mentioned there were already massive issues between taking offense and general confusion with how the tags work. I’m this case it feels like we’re arguing semantics and I’d rather not get into that.
 
Basically I’d rather not invent terminology for something that wasn’t a problem in the first place, terminology that’ll only add to the confusion.
 
Does that make sense?

@Raptorshy  
Use of amphibian as scalie feels odd?
 
Anyways if we’re defining by external body coverings, we could just go with, furred, feathered, scaled, and hmm… skinned has a different connotation xP. And then alias the respective groups to that.

@Gyro  
I’m fine with tagging fictional species as reptiles.
 
Also it’s worth mentioning that although amphibians and old style dinosaurs aren’t reptiles they fall easily into scalie.
 
I think bird gets the brunt of the word treatment because avian literally means bird… However most people aren’t looking for parakeets, they’re looking for gryphons and such. So people just kinda shove birds into birds just to have a way to clarify that they aren’t talking about them handless jerks that wake them up too early.

Disregard, accidentally hit anon

@Raptorshy  
But just because something has been done for a while doesnt make it correct really.
 
I mean, look at your gender/gender pairings (Though I did not realize thats how we were doing it, good to know), that is a much better level of description that does not marginalize the transgender community.
 
That being said, transgenderism is an example that we can look at very recent history in which we did not have terms for said things, but terms were needed, and not including them was a form of denying that they existed.
 
By using Avian and Scalie for ‘fictional species’ but leaving nonmammilian fictional species as mammals, we are otherising them, saying that sergals are ‘real’ mammals but say argonians are not ‘real’ reptiles. I’m fine with merging them in, or creating the supertags that @DoesNotExist suggested and just leaving them under the supertags, but it certainly feels weird to have Sergals and Zorgoias as ‘mammals’ but argonians, kobolds, and scaled dragons as not reptiles.
 
All I’m asking for is consistency here, instead of raising one group on a pedestal above others.
 
Its really a consistent problem within the furry community. Avians are often left out, or just represented by just one creature. We get ‘that’s a fox, or a dog, or a cat’ and yet when you look at birds, most of the time its just ‘that’s a bird’ :V
 
Like I fully get that it might be reasonable to separate out based on real animals from completely original species for the sake of classification, but it is speciesism to only apply that to one class of original species.