Jaggia is the female member of a Jaggi pack. The problem with this current alias (same happened with Lunastra -> Teostra), is that it's inconvenient to find Jaggia art when you have to go through a lot of Jaggi (and Great Jaggi) artwork. Even adding the female tag to the search may omit some results, because sometimes Jaggia is tagged with ambiguous_gender (and not everybody uses the female_(lore) tag). You can also get results of female versions of Great Jaggi in the mix. I think that it would be nice to have that alias removed, so it becomes a separate species tag.

As the wiki page says, there's no ambiguity between Jaggia and Jaggi: Jaggia have a different frill shape, a thicker tail, a bulkier body, and they are bigger than Jaggi; no need to check for their genitals.

Or else, the other way would be to fix/add to all Jaggia submissions the female or female_(lore) tags?

ivorylagiacrus said:
Jaggia is the female member of a Jaggi pack. The problem with this current alias (same happened with Lunastra -> Teostra), is that it's inconvenient to find Jaggia art when you have to go through a lot of Jaggi (and Great Jaggi) artwork. Even adding the female tag to the search may omit some results, because sometimes Jaggia is tagged with ambiguous_gender (and not everybody uses the female_(lore) tag). You can also get results of female versions of Great Jaggi in the mix. I think that it would be nice to have that alias removed, so it becomes a separate species tag.

As the wiki page says, there's no ambiguity between Jaggia and Jaggi: Jaggia have a different frill shape, a thicker tail, a bulkier body, and they are bigger than Jaggi; no need to check for their genitals.

e621 doesn't do separate species tags for males and females of a sexually dimorphic species. If you want to properly organise Jaggia you'll most likely have to curate a set yourself.

ivorylagiacrus said:
Or else, the other way would be to fix/add to all Jaggia submissions the female or female_(lore) tags?

Lore tags are for individual depictions, not broad application. If you see an ambiguous_gender Jaggia post that you know is definitely female you can add the tag, but otherwise due to creative freedoms within artistic depiction, it's possible to show a male character from a female-only species

magnuseffect said:
e621 doesn't do separate species tags for males and females of a sexually dimorphic species.

Sure we do. Nidoran♂ and Nidoran♀. That’s basically how Pokémon handles sexual dimorphism. As far as I can tell, the only reason they’re considered separate here is because they get separate entries in the game Pokédex, but the fact that a nidoran of either gender can produce offspring of either gender proves they are the same species.

That being said, it would probably make sense to have separate tags for significantly sexually dimorphic species, since, for example, it’s entirely possible for someone to draw a male peafowl or betta anthro with a female body, and that’ll clearly look very different from a female of either species.

scaliespe said:
Sure we do. Nidoran♂ and Nidoran♀. That’s basically how Pokémon handles sexual dimorphism. As far as I can tell, the only reason they’re considered separate here is because they get separate entries in the game Pokédex, but the fact that a nidoran of either gender can produce offspring of either gender proves they are the same species.

Someone will definitely correct me as I'm likely wrong, but I think the only reason Pokémon treats the Nidorans as separate species instead of one as they do with later generations is that the Nidorans are Generation 1 Pokémon while the programming for sexual dimorphism of the other species was introduced in a later generation. Furthermore, it's also a Pokémon sexual dimorphism whereupon the different sexes get different names. Basically, the continued separation of the Nidorans is a legacy thing to keep from breaking the established National Pokédex.

For our purposes, as Nintendo doesn't specifically say they're the same species yet the obviously are, plus the general weirdness of the interrelationships between different species (despite obviously looking like a sexually dimorphic species, they could also easily be two different species that reproduce like cut-rate Dittos), we find it best to just avoid all the guesswork, confusion, and potential tag wars of wading through all that and just tag them as separate Pokémon species.

Unlike the Nidorans which are only implied to be dimorphic, Jaggi are unambiguously a sexually dimorphic species in lore.

scaliespe said:
Sure we do. Nidoran♂ and Nidoran♀

Well, regardless, they don't imply gender tags.
Heck, maybe there should be a tag for Jaggia, but it shouldn't imply female

magnuseffect said:
Well, regardless, they don't imply gender tags.
Heck, maybe there should be a tag for Jaggia, but it shouldn't imply female

Yes, and the reason for that is because someone could draw a male nidoran body with female anatomy and vice versa, which has to be tagged according to the anatomy rather than the species’ dimorphism. With that being said, I think reinstating the Jaggia tag would be a good idea.

magnuseffect said:
Well, regardless, they don't imply gender tags.
Heck, maybe there should be a tag for Jaggia, but it shouldn't imply female

I like this idea, because we might eventually have artwork of a male Jaggia (as your Salazzle example).

My suggestion was more oriented towards the ease of search. If you want to search for Rathian, you won't get any Rathalos (unless they are together of course). Same with Lunastra, previously it was aliased to Teostra, so everybody who searched for exclusively Lunastras would find a lot of Teostras instead. This was fixed recently. Now, if you want to search for Jaggia (regardless the gender), you'll get a ton of Jaggi or Great Jaggi artwork, without any actual Jaggia in them.

But anyway, I also understand the reasons behind considering them all as "Jaggi", and also there's not enough artwork of Jaggia, so probably "nobody cares"... But maybe another suggestion would be having a new tag that groups them together, like the rath_wyvern tag.

Something like this tag implication:
jaggi -> jaggi_family
jaggia -> jaggi_family
great_jaggi -> jaggi_family

(Another reason for that, we have separated tags for wroggi, great_wroggi, izuchi and great_izuchi)

ivorylagiacrus said:
I like this idea, because we might eventually have artwork of a male Jaggia (as your Salazzle example).

My suggestion was more oriented towards the ease of search. If you want to search for Rathian, you won't get any Rathalos (unless they are together of course). Same with Lunastra, previously it was aliased to Teostra, so everybody who searched for exclusively Lunastras would find a lot of Teostras instead. This was fixed recently. Now, if you want to search for Jaggia (regardless the gender), you'll get a ton of Jaggi or Great Jaggi artwork, without any actual Jaggia in them.

But anyway, I also understand the reasons behind considering them all as "Jaggi", and also there's not enough artwork of Jaggia, so probably "nobody cares"... But maybe another suggestion would be having a new tag that groups them together, like the rath_wyvern tag.

Something like this tag implication:
jaggi -> jaggi_family
jaggia -> jaggi_family
great_jaggi -> jaggi_family

(Another reason for that, we have separated tags for wroggi, great_wroggi, izuchi and great_izuchi)

Well, this would be acceptable. They've got visible dimorphism most times, and the ones that don't have the defining traits visible can just be tagged directly to the family.

magnuseffect said:
e621 doesn't do separate species tags for males and females of a sexually dimorphic species. If you want to properly organise Jaggia you'll most likely have to curate a set yourself.

No, what e621 doesn't do is imply gender tags from features associated with sexual dimorphism. You were probably thinking of the infamous pikachu example when you wrote this, but this isn't relevant because both Pikachus with flat and heart-shaped tails are still tagged pikachu. This doesn't mean that a Pikachu with the female trait couldn't be tagged with heart-shaped_tail (assuming anyone could be bothered). We tag what we see, and when there are visible differences between the designs of two sexes, those are eligible to be tagged.

With that said, I think this alias was made in error. I see it was another ImpidiDinkaDoo special with no consultation, which would have avoided this situation.

The bulk update request #8517 is active.

remove alias great_jaggi (99) -> jaggi (40)
remove alias jaggia (85) -> jaggi (40)
remove alias great_baggi (26) -> baggi (7)
remove alias great_jagras (128) -> jagras (63)

Reason: As discussed in topic #30544, the aliasing for Great Jaggi (big monster, canonically male) and Jaggia (mid-sized, canonically female) should be split from Jaggi (small due to age or social status, canonically male), and the same logic applied to Great Baggi and Great Jagras. No need to get granular with all the subtypes of big monsters, of course. But, the smaller ones do have pretty distinct designs from the big ones. This lack of aliasing already exists for great_wroggi and wroggi, great_girros and girros, and a couple others, so there's precedent. Due to the relatively small numbers of posts for each, someone industrious (me, bored) could go through and correctly update them all within an afternoon.

EDIT: The bulk update request #8517 (forum #408144) has been approved by @scaliespe.

The bulk update request #8517 (forum #408144) has been approved by @scaliespe.