i was just browsing through some comments and came across post #1180011 and...that doesn't look like nick wilde to me. more like a generic fox cub.

granted this would hardly be the first time Nick has been drawn as a cub. from what i can tell he seems to just look like any old generic fox character with no particularly unique traits to set him apart. this raises the question of what sets him apart from any other generic looking foxes in art.

post #1175469 is clearly Nick as a cub

post #1181793 as an adult

and post #1180011 is...? theres no way of knowing if you compare the fur color patterns from this, the above pic of him as a cub, and pretty much any other fox.

the pic is tagged as nick wilde on FA but of course, that doesn't matter as far as TWYS is concerned.

treos said:
the pic is tagged as nick wilde on FA but of course, that doesn't matter as far as TWYS is concerned.

Actually, character names are fine. Just slap on the alternate_colors tag if the color pattern is wrong.

Names are TWYK, and are the only instance of such.

tag_what_you_see:

Exception for character names only:

You may use an OFFICIAL external source of information (the artist, commissioner, or character owner's gallery/website) when tagging a character name ONLY under the following conditions:

1) The external source of information is the artist, commissioner, or character owner's own words on their own gallery or website.

2) The post must have at least SOME evidence of the claimed character and can not have any evidence that CONFLICTS with what the external source is saying (e.g. a post can't be tagged "Character A" just because the external source says so, when the post does not actually contain any evidence of "Character A", or in fact looks more like "Character B" instead.) Again, there must be at least SOME evidence that the character is who it's claimed to be, but it does not have to be definitive proof.