I recently got into a discussion off-site about the merits of finding furry art featuring sharks. For the most part, this was concerning the prevalence of shark features themselves, and presentation of species.

Ears, no ears, head fins. All considerations in art and presentation that currently is not as much tagged in art on e621. However, these considerations for appearances are features that are specifically looked for, or avoided. With that in mind, various dragons on e621 can already be found by their distinguishing design features, such as ear fins, oriental aesthetics and the prevalence of multiple limbs or wing configurations. Eye colour is also a feature that is noted in many tagged submissions on e621.

Of course, I understand we don't go willy nilly about tagging pieces just like that, only to either have the changes be reverted without much cause, or worse, to have such editing be considered vandalism by a (new) user. Hence the thread!

Considerations:

• People like to look for artsmut without finding particular features in them,
• Tagging without disparaging remarks: common rules, and earshark is already a disparaging term in some circles,
• Tag what you see,
• Tag with what is available, eliminating the need for new tags.

Suggestions:

• Use of the term ear_fins for sharks with noted ears or finned ears, see also spoiler block,

• Use of the term head_fin for sharks with a cranial fin, see also spoiler block,

• No use of the term ear_fins or head_fin for sharks without such noted ears or finned ears, or a cranial fin, allowing users to find such images by leaving the features specifically out of a search for sharks, see also spoiler block,

.

Solution:

• Instate the use of ear_fins and head_fin tags to designate shark designs for searches.

...Boy howdy that is a lot of words for something I obviously should not care so much about.

But yeah, ideas, suggestions, changes?

The same kind of thing also goes on with birds, marine mammals, and some others, by the way

I was part of said off-site discussion and I am very much in favor of this. I will assist in scouring the shark tag to implement whatever changes the final decision deems necessary.

Head_fins and ear_fins are already tags in use, but with no more than a single page of images in both instances.

Head_fin and head_fins will probably need aliasing. Aliasing the latter to the former seems to make more sense. They are currently separate tags, but with no discern in their use; Characters with a head-fin (singular) are tagged as head_fins (plural), and vice-versa.

Ear_fin should probably be aliased to ear_fins for good measure. Ears generally come in pairs.

Suggestion:
Aliasing head_fins → head_fin
Aliasing ear_fin → ear_fins

It would also be a good idea to add a bald tag to images featuring hairless sharks in the process. Provides further differentiation.

chdgs said:

It would also be a good idea to add a bald tag to images featuring hairless sharks in the process. Provides further differentiation.

Oh hey, more shark lovers.

Might work better than the current lack of tagging hair on submissions.

Don't those already exist?
I don't see much difference between those and membranous_crest/frills (which has nearly 500 posts).

Those aren't tagged with consistency, but there's definitely some major overlap.

Genjar said:
Don't those already exist?
I don't see much difference between those and membranous_crest/frills (which has nearly 500 posts).

Those aren't tagged with consistency, but there's definitely some major overlap.

Ears aren't frills, are they? Headfins might be? I dunno, still new to the tagging system, but this particular snarl was one of the major reasons I signed up, anyway.

I'm not aware of any real animals that have those (although axolotl come close), but these ear thingys...
post #298627 post #289350
...are typicall called frills. On dragons, at least. And those seem quite similar to what's currently tagged as ear_fin.

Kitty_D said:
[Tagging as bald] Might work better than the current lack of tagging hair on submissions.

In retrospect, hair and bald seems to mostly work only for solo images. "Shark -hair" will leave out a lot of group images. "Shark bald" might not work nicely, either.

post #646006 vs post #332645
Call me persnickety, but the only thing shark-like about the one on the left are the pelvic/anal and caudal fins on the tail. Otherwise that's a dragon if I ever saw one.

While I wish it would be possible to completely differentiate "dragons-with-fins" from traditional sharks, ears and hair alone are what generally separate the two.

But such tagging is generally lacking to successfully separate the two when searching. Tagging ear_fins (or other?) as applicable and then searching for "shark ear_fins" or "shark -ear_fins" seems to be the better way to go about this.

I dare say that a separate species tag is warranted. What's the difference between an elf and a human? The pointed ears, for the most part. What makes the avian in post #626729 identifiable as a gryphon without seeing its lower body? The ears! Why not also include such separation for sharks?

Adding the specified species to certain sharks also helps.

post #96904

For example, Myrl is a Thresher Shark, as noticed by the shape of her head and the greatly elongated upper lobe of their tail fin.

chdgs said:
Call me persnickety, [...]

I dare say that a separate species tag is warranted. What's the difference between an elf and a human? The pointed ears, for the most part. What makes the avian in post #626729 identifiable as a gryphon without seeing its lower body? The ears! Why not also include such separation for sharks?

Persnickety =P

I kind of don't want to lean towards a separate species tag, mostly because of not dictating distinctions in artistic representations between species too much. Admittedly, I dislike ears on sharks, but it's a common enough design feature to have become popular.

But even if we did agree on a separate species tag, what do we even call them?

inb4 earshark or otherwise determining them as not-shark

GameManiac said:
Adding the specified species to certain sharks also helps.

Not really, I'm afraid. My suggestions are about key design elements in the shark, not necessarily native to the species, but inherent to some common design elements in anthro sharks.

Tagging sharks with their specific species isn't enough.
post #79287
Syrinoth's Sashi is also a thresher. Myrl has the ears (and hair), which is what this thread is discussing to sort out among sharks. Species be damned.

Kitty_D said:
But even if we did agree on a separate species tag, what do we even call them?

I've heard that the whole "dragon with fins"-shark craze started with someone's SecondLife avatar. Maybe derive a species name based on that. "shark_(disambiguation)", implicated to "shark".

I'd suggest "lobed_shark" or "scapha_shark", but those are pretty much just fancier ways of saying "earshark". As you stated in the OP, avoiding disparaging remarks is important. And I agree. Hence, "earshark" or anything like that is probably a no-go.

Adding something like "ear_fins" to describe a feature that allows separation of the two types of sharks is the best way to go about this. New species tag is kind of a last resort. They'd still be tagged as sharks, but having a "secondary" species tag would allow users to search for one or the other ("shark", "shark -newshark", or "newshark")

The tag ear_fins seems reasonable to me, personally. Though I don't really understand what people find appealing about sharks in general, so I guess if there were problems with it, I wouldn't be the one who would spot them.

Speaking of not understanding though! Does anyone mind perhaps clarifying that for me? What is appealing about sharks in particular? I have a project in the works, and understanding what people found appealing in sharks would actually benefit me (and it) a bit right now. I'd appreciate it.

Clawdragons said:
Speaking of not understanding though! Does anyone mind perhaps clarifying that for me? What is appealing about sharks in particular? I have a project in the works, and understanding what people found appealing in sharks would actually benefit me (and it) a bit right now. I'd appreciate it.

Personally? Sleek bodies, the scooped or bullet-shaped heads, the fins. Teeth help. Small breasts, too.

Kitty_D said:
Suggestions:

• Use of the term ear_fins for sharks with noted ears or finned ears, see also spoiler block ...
• Use of the term head_fin for sharks with a cranial fin, see also spoiler block ...

...

Solution:

• Instate the use of ear_fins and head_fin tags to designate shark designs for searches.

...

But yeah, ideas, suggestions, changes?

Not really planning on getting involved in this but wanted to add a few things.

I would personally keep species to a minimum, mainly because they often make it harder to search since you have to remember specific species (though, for those hardcore shark fans out there it's probably not a problem). They can also in the end get mixed with all sort of hybrids making them less effective. But that's only my very personal view and of course they're not bad, just less effective and usable.

Anyway, what I really was thinking about is that there is also dorsal_fin. It doesn't differentiate where on the body it is placed except dorsally, i.e. head/neck/back, but it might help to jump start an eventual tagging project.

I don't know if one really want to split up dorsal_fin since it might be hard to tell what's dorsal and what's not, but rather keep it as an umbrella term.

Currently both head_fin and head_fins exist and contains a few examples of what I see as frills and it would be nice to work out the definition of these properly.

This is my suggestion:

• frills (sort of membranous "fins", more for decorative purposes)
• fin (a protrusion/limb, more for functional purposes)
• dorsal_fin
• head_fin
• neck_fin? Probably too specific
• back_fin
• tail_fin (fish_tail has a few sharks in it)
• ear_fins (would this fall under "fin"?)

Last and probably least, there's also long_ears and pointy_ears.

Okay, seems like I went down the rabbit hole without me knowing...

Kitty_D said:
Personally? Sleek bodies, the scooped or bullet-shaped heads, the fins. Teeth help. Small breasts, too.

Hey. Thanks for the response, my good fellow.

goddamn do I love sharkgirls.

Tangent said:
goddamn do I love sharkgirls.

Me too.
Yum yum.

Also, just to add a little input, I prefer the sharks with hair and ears. basically what chdgs called a dragon.
So if you change the tags up, please pm me the tag to find these pics, cause I will most likely not get on the forum again for at least a week.

chdgs said:
But such tagging is generally lacking to successfully separate the two when searching. Tagging ear_fins (or other?) as applicable and then searching for "shark ear_fins" or "shark -ear_fins" seems to be the better way to go about this.

I dare say that a separate species tag is warranted. What's the difference between an elf and a human? The pointed ears, for the most part. [...]

Chessax said:
Anyway, what I really was thinking about is that there is also dorsal_fin. It doesn't differentiate where on the body it is placed except dorsally, i.e. head/neck/back, but it might help to jump start an eventual tagging project.

I don't know if one really want to split up dorsal_fin since it might be hard to tell what's dorsal and what's not, but rather keep it as an umbrella term.

Currently both head_fin and head_fins exist and contains a few examples of what I see as frills and it would be nice to work out the definition of these properly.

This is my suggestion:

• frills (sort of membranous "fins", more for decorative purposes)
• fin (a protrusion/limb, more for functional purposes)
• dorsal_fin
• head_fin
• neck_fin? Probably too specific
• back_fin
• tail_fin (fish_tail has a few sharks in it)
• ear_fins (would this fall under "fin"?)

Last and probably least, there's also long_ears and pointy_ears.

Pretty solid, all around, really.

And if ear_fins doesn't cut it for these pointed (and not always necessarily long) shark ears (see also post #539992, post #614251, post #268286), there's always the pointed_ears tag.

Dunno how the forums look upon bumping. Probably not kindly.

Might a moderator care to weigh in as well with their experience and know-how?

Kitty_D said:
Dunno how the forums look upon bumping. Probably not kindly.

Might a moderator care to weigh in as well with their experience and know-how?

Wiki and tags bumping is usually okay (assuming there's a good reason). This is especially true for threads that weren't created with the implication/alias tools as they get lost pretty easily.

I'll see if I can take a look at this tonight and condense the discussion into a plan. I'll admit I'm not too familiar with the subject so bear with me. :P

I'm going to sperg out about earsharks for a moment here.

post #661867

I mistakenly tagged this "-dolphin -cetacean +shark +fish" for a brief moment until I looked at other instances of the character, Daphne_Maer.

As the name, artist insistence, and preexisting image tags suggests: she is a dolphin. Though her design suggests she is a shark.

Forward nostrils of a shark instead of a blowhole (not that you'd want one of those with hair). Ears and a long tail a la "earshark". Razor sharp teeth more like those found on a canine or dragon as opposed to those found on a dolphin.

The only thing delphinic about her design is that the fins at the end of her tail sometimes appear to be horizontal like dolphin flukes, instead of vertical like a shark's caudal fin.

There is a sliver of relevance to this thread's topic in my little rant.

We should take whatever method we decide upon for differentiating sharks and apply it to dolphins and other cetaceans as well. As there are quite a few "eardolphins" out there.

The aforementioned totally-not-a-shark Daphne_Maer, RainbowScreen's Penelope, Chalosan's Xeánica, and GreyMaria's Natalie_(greymaria), to name a few.

_
I hate what the furry fandom has done to these aquatic species. Mostly because they are not separately categorized where their vastly different appearances should probably warrant it. yes i mad

This topic has been fascinating to me, I must say. It seems so strange to me that ears on sharks is such a heated topic, while other anatomical oddities don't seem to be so prominent. I mean, they also lack gills, and have boobs, and head hair, and all that. Why are shark ears controversial but shark hair isn't?

Clawdragons said:
This topic has been fascinating to me, I must say. It seems so strange to me that ears on sharks is such a heated topic, while other anatomical oddities don't seem to be so prominent. I mean, they also lack gills, and have boobs, and head hair, and all that. Why are shark ears controversial but shark hair isn't?

Oh, hair is very much a part of it as well. "Earsharks" is just a catch-all of sorts, for a lack of a better term.

And there's a difference in anthropomorphizing creatures by giving them human attributes (limbs, breasts, ears, hairstyles), and anthropomorphizing creatures by giving them human attributes in addition to traits not found on either a human or the creature in question (digitigrade legs and claws on sharks, in this case). Not that such is a terribly uncommon practice in the fandom (foxes with wings, etc.).

But omitting or replacing too many base features in addition to mixing in too many "outside" attributes result in something that may not immediately be recognizable as the base creature. *cough*dragonswithfins*cough* (For which I refer to one of my earlier posts above.)

But some occurrences can be tagged, and filtered out with -attribute, -hybrid, etc. or even sometimes confer their own species tags.

Example: Dracophin, just for Micksam7's feral dragon-dolphin hybrids. Though I do think it is rather silly that it has its own tag when "dragon dolphin hybrid" would do just as well. Seems better to tag with the name the character if you want find Micksam's specific dragon-dolphin hybrid among the other dragon-dolphin hybrids.

But we currently have no way of quickly sorting out sharks like post #646006 apart from sharks like post #332645. It's more than just the ears and hair. Their faces take on a rather vastly different appearances. Whereas, say, a dog always has a canine-like head among others of the same species/breed.

My main gripe about "earsharks" (or whathaveyou) is that they are difficult to filter out when looking for traditional sharks.

And again: I emphasize that I am admittedly overly picky when it comes to sharks.

This one is kind of interesting because we actually have several dimensions to choose from in addition to the usual locations. I honestly tried to make a graphic to describe this but failed miserably (who would have thought I’d be not-so-good at drawing fish models). I’m also very disorganized today and somewhat overstimulated, but I started writing…and well…you know the rest.

Awesome, Parasprite.

Would it be alright to for us to start off on sharks and other aquatics in images with the tags you have posted?

Kitty_D said:
Awesome, Parasprite.

Would it be alright to for us to start off on sharks and other aquatics in images with the tags you have posted?

Sure. The sorting right now looks good for simple fins, but we can always tweak them later if needed.

On a related note, I know these kind of overlap sometimes, but we may be able to use the same framework for those weird lizardy frills while we're at it. Something like this:

• frills (frill)
• head_frill (head_frills)
• ear_frills (ear_frill)
• neck_frill (neck_frills)

Thoughts?

parasprite said:
Thoughts?

Solid. It's distinct enough a tag so it won't get lumped with ears per sé, and it's got neat distinctions going between the various sorts of frills in art.

parasprite said:
Thoughts?

Will likely need frequent cleanup, based on how those and fins are tagged. But it makes no sense to tag frills as fins or fins as frills, so that seems like a good plan anyway.

Alright. I've made the following changes:

parasprite said:

Misc:

• merfolk-style lower body
• fish_tail (over 200 posts)
• shark_tail (2 posts)
• tail_ridge (similar to spines)
• membranous_fins, frills (frill) - See vaporeon, post #614398) - More lizardy, but they overlap

Digging this up to ask a related question about the overlap in frills & fins.
Based on parasprite's rules in Misc. Vaporeon should be tagged membranous_fins, head_frill, ear_frills, membranous_ruff, spine_ridge, tail_ridge, fish_tail, tail_fin?

Would it be the same for aquatic dragon/reptile post #745241? Or is it up to personal judgement on if it has a lizardy appearance instead of being based on whether someone is aquatic?

Merfolk post #359173 can have membranous frill ears, how should those be handled?