The bulk update request #2841 is pending approval.

create alias canine_anatomy (0) -> canid (1278904)
create alias canine_ears (356) -> ears (0)
create alias canine_teeth (383) -> teeth (659852)

Reason: Some vague and duplicate canine-related tags I've been seeing. canine_anatomy is incredibly vague and ambiguous, especially in stylized artwork, it essentially just denotes some kind of canid (or canid hybrid) creature. canine_teeth is also ambiguous in artwork, it's not really possible to distinguish canine teeth from other animals' teeth, with it's use ranging from simple fangs to a canine with barely visible teeth. canine_ears is also vague, as different canines can have wildly different types of ears (fennec vs arctic fox vs grey wolf), and not all such ear types are exclusive to canines (I would've aliased this to just ears, but that's aliased to invalid_tag).

Is Ears really something worth hiding? Seems like it could be brought back as an invalid category so people know "oh hey ears are invalid to tag" rather than seeing an invalid tag and not knowing which one it was.

I'm not sure if canine_genitalia should be kept. Currently tags have the chain of e.g. canine_penis -i-> animal_penis -i-> animal_genitalia. Either it should be implied from canine penis/pussy or be aliased to animal_genitalia.

furrin_gok said:
Is Ears really something worth hiding? Seems like it could be brought back as an invalid category so people know "oh hey ears are invalid to tag" rather than seeing an invalid tag and not knowing which one it was.

If ears gets unaliased and moved to the invalid category, I can update the BUR. But currently it errors when I try to alias canine_ears to ears since ears is aliased away.

animperfectpatsy said:
I'm not sure if canine_genitalia should be kept. Currently tags have the chain of e.g. canine_penis -i-> animal_penis -i-> animal_genitalia. Either it should be implied from canine penis/pussy or be aliased to animal_genitalia.

I remember having seen discussion some time ago about having tags like canine_genitalia and equine_genitalia, since animal_genitalia + <species> could have too many false positives to be reliable.

watsit said:
I remember having seen discussion some time ago about having tags like canine_genitalia and equine_genitalia, since animal_genitalia + <species> could have too many false positives to be reliable.

I don't see the problem with establishing a species_genitalia tag hierarchy. Most other compound tags have dual implication chains.

If we're keeping canine_genitlia, we'll need canine_penis and canine_pussy to imply it.

crocogator said:
If we're keeping canine_genitlia, we'll need canine_penis and canine_pussy to imply it.

Same with equine_genitalia being implied by equine_penis and equine_pussy, and feline_genitalia being implied by feline_penis and feline_pussy. And cetacean_genitalia, etc. That should all go into a separate BUR if people agree with it.

Related: topic #31865

gattonero2001 said:
Related: topic #31865

I removed alias canine_genitals -> canine_genitalia from this BUR since yours already has it.

watsit said:
create alias canine_anatomy (45) -> canid (882483)

And then watch it get tagged for canid genitalia on species that aren't canid

magnuseffect said:
And then watch it get tagged for canid genitalia on species that aren't canid

Any better suggestion? It's not exclusively genitalia, or any specific body part. If it doesn't denote some kind of canid (which all current uses do), the only thing left is invalid_tag, which should be avoided if there's a better target.

magnuseffect said:
And then watch it get tagged for canid genitalia on species that aren't canid

Canid anatomy of any kind of a non-canid species would technically make it a canid hybrid, so the alias would still be valid.

scaliespe said:
Canid anatomy of any kind of a non-canid species would technically make it a canid hybrid, so the alias would still be valid.

I shouldn't have to point out that's not how it's treated by the people producing or searching for the art here.
By this point canid dicks are effectively a goes-on-anything alternative to humanoid_penis. And as much as I'd like to jab at people putting canid penises on their hyaenid characters, I'd rather not further embed the misconception a lot of people seem to have that hyaenids are canids.

magnuseffect said:
I shouldn't have to point out that's not how it's treated by the people producing or searching for the art here.
By this point canid dicks are effectively a goes-on-anything alternative to humanoid_penis. And as much as I'd like to jab at people putting canid penises on their hyaenid characters, I'd rather not further embed the misconception a lot of people seem to have that hyaenids are canids.

Perhaps not, but if I ran into a hyena with a canid penis that was tagged as a hyena/canid hybrid, I’d leave it be. I don’t expect that to become common practice, but it’s not technically incorrect either.

scaliespe said:
Perhaps not, but if I ran into a hyena with a canid penis that was tagged as a hyena/canid hybrid, I’d leave it be. I don’t expect that to become common practice, but it’s not technically incorrect either.

When I find a post of a hyena with a canid penis that is tagged both hyaenid + canid (usually from tagging hyena or a specific species and also manually-tagging canid) ^{accompanying post page} and not hybrid^{which would be incorrect to imply as part of this bur} , with no other indicators in source pages clarifying that it was intended to be a hybrid, I call it a mistag.

watsit said:
If ears gets unaliased and moved to the invalid category, I can update the BUR.

This has happened, so you can update the BUR now.

scaliespe said:
This has happened, so you can update the BUR now.

Done.