The bulk update request #5816 is pending approval.

change category bird_demon (179) -> species
create implication bird_demon (179) -> bird (142898)
create implication bird_demon (179) -> demon (118444)
create implication avian_demon (740) -> avian (195121)
create implication avian_demon (740) -> demon (118444)
create implication owl_demon (4302) -> owl (15383)
create implication owl_demon (4302) -> demon (118444)
create implication peafowl_demon (162) -> peafowl (2557)
create implication peafowl_demon (162) -> demon (118444)

Reason: Useful for the Helluva Boss community who want to tag Goetia demon species accurately. Structure already in place elsewhere, with canid_demon implying canid and demon. Also recategorizes "bird_demon" as a Species tag.

The species_demon tags really feel like another case of the hybrid tags, where they'd be better off being tagged as their respective species [ie owl] and demon. The only thing separating an owl_demon from an owl with demonic features is the art style, imo.

moonlit-comet said:
The species_demon tags really feel like another case of the hybrid tags, where they'd be better off being tagged as their respective species [ie owl] and demon. The only thing separating an owl_demon from an owl with demonic features is the art style, imo.

In which case, would it be better to have canid_demon aliased to demon instead of implying it?

atomicblaze21 said:
In which case, would it be better to have canid_demon aliased to demon instead of implying it?

For consistency sake, yes. There's even more ambiguity within the canid_demon tag because so many of them are just canines with horns or red eyes.
Without the context of the media they're from, these guys are just anthro dogs with red eyes.
post #4288126 post #4191043 post #4428915

I doubt that most people would read these character designs as demons if they knew nothing about the media or the character itself.

moonlit-comet said:
I doubt that most people would read these character designs as demons if they knew nothing about the media or the character itself.

In which case, would the "demon" part violate TWYS if it's not immediately apparent? After all, to an uninitiated observer, they're just anthro dogs. That just makes more of a case to make the alias.

moonlit-comet said:
For consistency sake, yes. There's even more ambiguity within the canid_demon tag because so many of them are just canines with horns or red eyes.
Without the context of the media they're from, these guys are just anthro dogs with red eyes.
post #4288126 post #4191043 post #4428915

I doubt that most people would read these character designs as demons if they knew nothing about the media or the character itself.

Tbf, the demon wiki's 3rd example also doesn't really have any demon qualities other than the common succubus tail that's used on a ton of other things. It has no horns, no red skin, not monstrous. It doesn't look remotely demon-esque to me.

post #2039683

succubus, maybe, but succubus doesn't imply demon even though its wiki specifically says it's a demon lol. Even more weird is that demon has aliases for like every kind of succubus and incubus except for the obvious ones.

And further, these are red_sclera which isn't red_eyes and slightly more demon-esque? Since red sclera is unnatural enough for canines to maybe be considered enough to be a demon.

Perhaps the best solution is just to make all demon and their classes lore tags? Overall wouldn't affect people searching for demons, but even trying to fix the tag is basically impossible. Aliasing will solve nothing as it just means posts will have demon still, which wouldn't help mistags. But basically every demon tag is accurate from a lore perspective.

definitelynotafurry4 said:
Perhaps the best solution is just to make all demon and their classes lore tags? Overall wouldn't affect people searching for demons, but even trying to fix the tag is basically impossible. Aliasing will solve nothing as it just means posts will have demon still, which wouldn't help mistags. But basically every demon tag is accurate from a lore perspective.

Species tags in general have always been somewhat TWYK, particularly for fictional species. Only the general category is supposed to be purely TWYS. While real species generally are required to have specific traits to be tagged, fictional species are almost entirely based on artist claims. The same set of features often match multiple species (anthro dragon or kobold?), especially since anthro characters in general only get a few of their species traits.

scth said:
Species tags in general have always been somewhat TWYK, particularly for fictional species.

They may be somewhat TWYK, but they aren't completely. I can't tag lucario on something that's clearly yveltal. They should still be visually identifiable, some way to prove or disprove what it is (with a gray area where it can't be proven nor disproven with what happens to be visible on a particular image), and not be purely based on say-so, otherwise it's nothing more than a glorified lore tag.