The tag alias #74614 succubus -> demon is pending approval.

Reason: incubus and other succubus-related tags are already aliased to demon.

I could have sworn this got done last time this came up. Looking back at the previous forum posts, they seem to have just trailed off, with everyone sorta agreeing that there should be consistency, and being a bit baffled as to why this same alias got reverted.

Strongly disagree with you here. Demon is just too broad of a category, and succubus refers to a particular kind of demon. Aliasing it away would make searching for succubi (or whatever the plural is) harder. Once upon a time is was aliased to demon, and it was difficult to find good succubus pics. Then one day it wasn't, and I liked this site better. I think succubus and incubus and all succubus_* tags need to be untangled, but I don't think this is the way to do it.

All the succubus_<species> tags are unnecessary and those rightfully should be aliased to something. Incubus is rather difficult as they are colloquially "male succubus" which I believe is the crux of this issue. Maybe just put all sex demons (including incubus) under the succubus umbrella?

civil_nitrogen said:
Strongly disagree with you here. Demon is just too broad of a category, and succubus refers to a particular kind of demon. Aliasing it away would make searching for succubi (or whatever the plural is) harder. Once upon a time is was aliased to demon, and it was difficult to find good succubus pics. Then one day it wasn't, and I liked this site better. I think succubus and incubus and all succubus_* tags need to be untangled, but I don't think this is the way to do it.

can you explain to me in what ways "succubus" is anything other than the feminine gendered term for a demon? because that's literally the only I've ever seen the tag used.

EDIT:

civil_nitrogen said:
Maybe just put all sex demons (including incubus) under the succubus umbrella?

I mean, any demon can be is a sex demon if someone does a sex with it, which uhh... *checks notes* seems to be pretty common to see with demons on here.

dba_afish said:
can you explain to me in what ways "succubus" is anything other than the feminine gendered term for a demon? because that's literally the only I've ever seen the tag used.

I know it wasn't fair of me to edit my post immediately after posting it, but here are some examples I hastily dug up.

These are examples of what the general fandom considers a succubus, appearance-wise

post #4791587 post #4909711 post #4850887 post #5152124

These are some results of demon female that I personally would not consider a succubus

post #5274868 post #5270361 post #5183977 post #5129333

At 75 posts per page, succubus returns 68 pages, and demon female 750

civil_nitrogen said:
I know it wasn't fair of me to edit my post immediately after posting it, but here are some examples I hastily dug up.

These are examples of what the general fandom considers a succubus, appearance-wise

post #4791587 post #4909711 post #4850887 post #5152124

These are some results of demon female that I personally would not consider a succubus

post #5274868 post #5270361 post #5183977 post #5129333

so, just <has bat wings>?

civil_nitrogen said:
These are some results of demon female that I personally would not consider a succubus

post #5274868 post #5270361 post #5183977 post #5129333

Not sure I'd even call them demons.

Part of the problem is that it's subjective what one calls a succubus, let alone a demon (which is its own can of worms). It's a mythological creature that any person can put their own spin on, which is no more right or wrong than anyone else's spin. If we're talking actual real-world mythos, succubus would be very hard to tag: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succubus

According to some folklore, a succubus needs semen to survive; repeated sexual activity with a succubus will result in a bond being formed between the succubus and the person; and a succubus will drain or harm the man with whom she is having intercourse.

I doubt 99% of the posts with the tag depict anything along these lines. More telling is the next line:

In modern representations, a succubus is often depicted as a beautiful seductress or enchantress, rather than as demonic or frightening.

So it's just a seductive female/gynomorph/herm/ambiguous, who doesn't have to look demonic or frightening. A succubus is whatever someone wants to call a succubus, which will be different from person to person.

Keep in mind that incubus and other succubus-related tags are already aliased to demon, so if succubus is to be kept separate, those should be un-aliased as well. It looks to me like leaving "succubus" unaliased was an oversight more than anything else.

Personally, on the one hand I would argue that concubi are a distinct type of demon that may warrant a separate tag, and we do have tags for other subspecies e.g. wyvern. However, other subspecies tags are typically for objective differences in appearance, and there's no one "canonical" appearance for concubi, which brings us into the subjectivity problem.

Perhaps a lore tag could be a compromise, given the important traits of concubi are informed rather than physical?

I also think that either Incubus needs to be de-aliased, or have a general lust_demon or concubus lore tag. Concubi/succubi/incubi are demonic subspecies and it'd be very helpful to be able to have some way of distinguishing them from other demons

civil_nitrogen said:
Strongly disagree with you here. Demon is just too broad of a category, and succubus refers to a particular kind of demon. Aliasing it away would make searching for succubi (or whatever the plural is) harder. Once upon a time is was aliased to demon, and it was difficult to find good succubus pics. Then one day it wasn't, and I liked this site better. I think succubus and incubus and all succubus_* tags need to be untangled, but I don't think this is the way to do it.

All the succubus_<species> tags are unnecessary and those rightfully should be aliased to something. Incubus is rather difficult as they are colloquially "male succubus" which I believe is the crux of this issue. Maybe just put all sex demons (including incubus) under the succubus umbrella?

As Mab (DMFA) called them, Cubi? Yeah, it is an unfortunate alias right before it in the dictionary. Kind of funny reference/spelling: https://madoka.fandom.com/wiki/Kyubey
Supposedly:

Etymology

Kyubey's name comes from the word Incubator (インキュベーター?).Episode 08 Incubator comes from the Latin word "incubare" which means "to lie".[1]

Probably referencing this article.

So, the machine that helps hatch eggs is named after lying? Horrible pun or accident, that's kind of funny.

Lore tag would probably make more sense unless it's specific series' definition/appearance.

lust_demon_laz said:
it'd be very helpful to be able to have some way of distinguishing them from other demons

This is precisely the problem. A succubus/incubus/etc is ultimately whatever someone calls a succubus/incubus/etc. They're rarely depicted with any traits associated with the mythological creature and the tag is applied to random "sexy demons", for whatever someone finds sexy and calls a demon. Older myths didn't require them to look sexy, and newer depictions don't have to look demonic, so they really can be anything. It's just a vanity tag, something the tagger wants to tag for the sake of tagging it.

alphamule said:
Lore tag would probably make more sense unless it's specific series' definition/appearance.

demon (like a lot of fictional species categories) is already tagged on a lore basis anyway because they're not real and the concept of demonic entities has existed pretty much as long as religion has, and every culture has a different image of what one looks like and even then those all shift with time.

the problem is that succubus/incubus dosn't even have a consistent, coherent lore definition within their own category. while demon's definition is essentially just <is demon>, at least that's semi-coherent, even if it's kinda meaningless visually it is a fairly basic concept. on the other hand, succubus and the like are like <is demon> AND <has sex> OR <is seductive> OR <is conventionally attractive> OR <caters to a fetish> OR <consumes sexual energy> OR <consumes sexual fluids> OR <has genitals> OR... in practice it dosn't really mean anything beyond what demon means on its own.

I vehemently disagree with this notion as not only there are over 5000 pictures of them, they do have some distinctive features besides their abilities. Mainly these three main features
1. Large horns
2. Human face (anthro variant has anthro muzzle)
3. Large Bat Wings (or butt wings)
4. Spade or Heart shaped tail points
The 4th most important feature and probably the only thing that actually makes them stand out among demons are their tails. However, if part of this discussion was made to prevent characters such as Meri who barely has demonic traits from being tagged as such.
post #5263980
(sharp antenna, sharp wings, a spade tail in the form of a stinger)

Characters with some Succubus like traits:
post #4152483
Leader only has her spade tail out.

post #5242858
This random Succubus dalmatian only has the horns and wings.

If it's meant to prevent the more extreme instances where it's only the character's lore or part of a comic, but no distinct obvious features. Like Venus for the latter.
post #5235723

or this comic for the former:
post #5244320

Then I'm okay with removing the tags of these pictures as they don't follow the tag what you see rule well.
The only time that it should be ignored is when a character directly references that she is a Succubus in comics:
post #5194875 post #4502842

Or when a Succubus her true form with typical Succubus traits:
post #4461796

There's more I'd like to say but if this discussion is happening because of those issues, then those are the main topics about why certain characters shouldn't have them while the rest should. But we shouldn't alias the tag into demon since that also kinda counts for imps but as a subspecies that's different from normal demons, I believe they should have that same courtesy. And even if it should result of the loss of them being count as species, they should still have their own "general" tag like witches or toony. Since many people still search for Succubi on purpose on their own from demons.

jolem said:
I vehemently disagree with this notion as not only there are over 5000 pictures of them, they do have some distinctive features besides their abilities. Mainly these three main features
1. Large horns

Plenty of things have large horns, and plenty of "demons" don't.

jolem said:
2. Human face (anthro variant has anthro muzzle)

Has a human face, except when it's not a human face?

jolem said:
3. Large Bat Wings (or butt wings)

Plenty of things have bat-like wings.

jolem said:
4. Spade or Heart shaped tail points

spade_tail covers that. In any case, at best these are inconclusively indicative of a demon. On their own, the first three cover a large majority of dragons or dragon_humanoids. As stated, a succubus is often just seen as a "sexy demon", displaying none of the traits of mythological succubi (needing semen to live, draining the life force of their victims whom they're seducing, etc), and even the "demon" traits being minor, open to interpretation, or missing altogether. Historically, succubi did not need to look sexy (and would often have traits that would be seen as gross or disturbing), and in modern times, they don't need to look like classical demons, so even the "sexy demon" aspect is shaky.

jolem said:
Characters with some Succubus like traits:
post #4152483
Leader only has her spade tail out.

Having a spade tail doesn't make something a succubus, and plenty of succubus don't have a spade tail. She doesn't even need to be a demon, you could just as well call her a vampire and it'd fit just fine.

jolem said:
post #5242858
This random Succubus dalmatian only has the horns and wings.

Just like these dragons:
post #5284149 post #4728764

jolem said:
But we shouldn't alias the tag into demon since that also kinda counts for imps but as a subspecies that's different from normal demons, I believe they should have that same courtesy.

Imps can be a succubus too. They're not different from normal demons, it's just an additional stated attribute on top of what the character already is, that doesn't need any visual component.

jolem said:
I vehemently disagree with this notion as not only there are over 5000 pictures of them, they do have some distinctive features besides their abilities. Mainly these three main features
1. Large horns
2. Human face (anthro variant has anthro muzzle)
3. Large Bat Wings (or butt wings)
4. Spade or Heart shaped tail points
The 4th most important feature and probably the only thing that actually makes them stand out among demons are their tails.

post #4597874

jolem said:
I vehemently disagree with this notion as not only there are over 5000 pictures of them, they do have some distinctive features besides their abilities. Mainly these three main features
1. Large horns
2. Human face (anthro variant has anthro muzzle)
3. Large Bat Wings (or butt wings)
4. Spade or Heart shaped tail points

I've never heard of any of these being succubi-specific traits.

Would you consider a lore tag an acceptable compromise, Jolem?

watsit said:
Imps can be a succubus too. They're not different from normal demons, it's just an additional stated attribute on top of what the character already is, that doesn't need any visual component.

Okay... fine, if it's treated like a specific job for demons, or even living monsters, specifically then that's all the more reason it's important to have its own tag rather than being absorbed into the demon tag, because that will definitely make it hard for people looking for these demons specifically and being dragged into catch all term doesn't help when Succubi are about as varied as witches, which sometimes can be considered their own species and other times like a Class/Job similar to Knight, Rouge, Thief, and Dragoon.

beholding said:
I've never heard of any of these being succubi-specific traits.

Would you consider a lore tag an acceptable compromise, Jolem?

I would actually consider the tail would be a more defining trait to tell the difference between Succubi and normal demons. But most of the time, when that kind of effort is put into effect, it's usually heart tails for them and that doesn't really catch on at the end of the day.

So basically, yes, a lore tag or general tag would be a much more acceptable compromise than removing it completely for both fans of the subspecies and helpful for looking for the specific species, especially given the fact that they can shapeshift like the one in the comic about the apparently Incubus Otter.
post #5244320
We see that he has powers but there's nothing else about him that suggests he's actually an Incubus.

jolem said:
Okay... fine, if it's treated like a specific job for demons, or even living monsters, specifically then that's all the more reason it's important to have its own tag rather than being absorbed into the demon tag, because that will definitely make it hard for people looking for these demons specifically and being dragged into catch all term doesn't help when Succubi are about as varied as witches, which sometimes can be considered their own species and other times like a Class/Job similar to Knight, Rouge, Thief, and Dragoon.

Should be noted that we don't tag the job or profession of characters that simply have that the job or profession, but when they're dressed or in an environment that indicates them doing that kind of work. So it will still fall back to the same issue of what a succubus looks like, something visible to indicate that's what they do, which there is no consistent definition or standard.

jolem said:
So basically, yes, a lore tag or general tag would be a much more acceptable compromise than removing it completely for both fans of the subspecies and helpful for looking for the specific species, especially given the fact that they can shapeshift like the one in the comic about the apparently Incubus Otter.
post #5244320
We see that he has powers but there's nothing else about him that suggests he's actually an Incubus.

Ironically, that would be one of the few images that could work for a succubus/incubus tag, a character visibly absorbing or feeding off another's sexual energy. Since a succubus/incubus doesn't look like anything specific, they can look like anything, it then falls to their visible actions or behavior to identify them. That would be exactly what suggests he's an incubus, so would be the best indicator for the tag to work. But examples like that expose another issue, regarding other posts of the same character not doing that thing, like the next page which doesn't show them doing that, and thus not be identifiable as one. Also also, that shows the confusion between succubus and incubus for intersex characters; an andromorph is generally considered a more masculine sex here, so if anything would fall under "incubus", but on the previous page, he calls himself a "succubus", which would be the feminine version (and he does have a pussy to fill with cum via sex). So he calls himself a succubus because he has and uses female parts like a female would, when he would be better classified as an incubus due to being a more masculine sex, and only sometimes shows traits to identify himself as anything different from a generic anthro otter.

And examples like that are far and few between, compared to all the posts tagged succubus just because it has a sexy looking "demon-ish" character and no indication of any attributes of real-world mythological succubi/incubi. Tags do get aliased away like this when they're too heavily misused like it is.

In any case, a succubus/incubus lore tag would still need a consistent definition of what a succubus/incubus is, and it would depend on the artist's intent for each individual image matching that definition, not the tagger's opinion/interpretation of a character (e.g. if the source doesn't say a character is a succubus, it shouldn't be assumed it is regardless of how they look) or the artist wanting to call them that despite not fitting the site's definition. I believe a lore tag would get just as misused as the current tag, and would equally end up as a vanity tag like the current one is.

Would it be worth creating an alternate alias request aliasing succubus -> succubus_(lore) to see how the votes compare?

beholding said:
Would it be worth creating an alternate alias request aliasing succubus -> succubus_(lore) to see how the votes compare?

to me this really does not fit the use case for loreification. the problem with succubus isn't that it's not taggable by TWYS, the problem is that it lacks a coherent definition. we know what "trans" means, we know what family members are, "succubus" means maybe a dozen different things depending who you ask.

dba_afish said:
to me this really does not fit the use case for loreification. the problem with succubus isn't that it's not taggable by TWYS, the problem is that it lacks a coherent definition. we know what "trans" means, we know what family members are, "succubus" means maybe a dozen different things depending who you ask.

Why can't we just discuss and make a specific definition for what counts as succubus/inccubus/concubus on the site?
If it's because the tag may be misused then that seems like (for lack of more polite phrasing) a lazy reason. People misuse urban vs city vs city_background vs cityscape yet those tags are all still in use. If it's because of ambiguity, then what about town vs city, where is the line between a city and a town? Most people would have slightly different definitions, which is why there are guidelines for use on the wiki of each tag. What distinguishes Tabaxi from Khajit from a general anthro feline? What's the line between big_penis and hyper_penis? There's always ambiguity and edge cases. Having a general tag, like witch or royalty seems like it'd be a good compromise, it gives an option for narrowing searches, can follow TWYS (often the only time someone is tagged as royalty is because they're sitting on the throne/fancy chair, or wearing some kind of crown tiara or laurel wreath), while avoiding the authority of a lore or species tag

lust_demon_laz said:
Why can't we just discuss and make a specific definition for what counts as succubus/inccubus/concubus on the site?

People don't have a habit of reading wikis when they already have an idea for what a word or phrase means. See how badly humanoid gets mistagged for anthros despite a wiki clearly indicating that it's different. Though even if we did come up with a specific definition for what counts and be able to enforce it, I don't imagine it'd be as loose as "sexy demon", requiring something more concrete that aligns with real world mythology and thus exclude many if not most posts that have the tag now. I don't think people would be happy with the tag if it doesn't include what they want for it, assuming we could even keep it under control.

lust_demon_laz said:
Why can't we just discuss and make a specific definition for what counts as succubus/inccubus/concubus on the site?
If it's because the tag may be misused then that seems like (for lack of more polite phrasing) a lazy reason. People misuse urban vs city vs city_background vs cityscape yet those tags are all still in use.

the problem isn't misuse either it's a lack of an agreement on what the tag should be for on even the most basic of basics. the only consistent trait is that the character is of demonic origin and probably does sex.

lust_demon_laz said:
If it's because of ambiguity, then what about town vs city, where is the line between a city and a town?

presence of multi-story buildings.

lust_demon_laz said:
Most people would have slightly different definitions, which is why there are guidelines for use on the wiki of each tag.

people don't use tag wikis that often, therefore a tagname needs to be enough to get the gist of a tags meaning across.

lust_demon_laz said:
What distinguishes Tabaxi from Khajit from a general anthro feline?

being from the Forgotten Relms or Nirn.

lust_demon_laz said:
What's the line between big_penis and hyper_penis?

one's big, one's absurdly big.

lust_demon_laz said:
There's always ambiguity and edge cases. Having a general tag, like witch or royalty seems like it'd be a good compromise, it gives an option for narrowing searches, can follow TWYS (often the only time someone is tagged as royalty is because they're sitting on the throne/fancy chair, or wearing some kind of crown tiara or laurel wreath), while avoiding the authority of a lore or species tag

or like, you could just tag the individual features and search for the individual features because, again: no one agrees which individual features actually make this up.

Please no lore tag, that's not what the lore category is for

As a counterpoint, species tagging is relatively TWYK and has been for a couple years; the guidance I've heard is tag the species the artist says unless it's obviously wrong, or goes against the specific species definition we have here when one exists. That allows for open-ended species tagged based on artist intent.

scth said:
As a counterpoint, species tagging is relatively TWYK and has been for a couple years; the guidance I've heard is tag the species the artist says unless it's obviously wrong, or goes against the specific species definition we have here when one exists. That allows for open-ended species tagged based on artist intent.

But what is "obviously wrong" for a succubus is going to vary from person to person. As mentioned before, a succubus can look like anything; older mythos had them look demonic and possibly ugly, while newer interpretations have them look pretty and possibly demonic. Here is a depiction from 1915, here is a depiction posted 2 days ago, and here is another depiction. Where's the commonality to guide us on what is obviously wrong in other depictions? How do posts like these fit in? Even though species may allow for a bit more TWYK compared to general tags, it still needs some visual aspect to match up. iko mimiffs were invalidated for that reason, being tagged based on the tagger insisting it applied and not having any unique visual aspect to work with.

lust_demon_laz said:
What's the line between big_penis and hyper_penis?

Tangential, but these ones do in fact have pretty clear and consistent definitions. "Big" is big by realistic standards, "huge" is the upper end of what is realistically possible, "hyper" is impossibly large.

As others have explained, concubi do not have similarly clear and consistent visual definitions.

While it is true succubi is ambiguous in their definition or have defined distentions that are not taggeble, they are not exactly alone in that and I am rather wary of touching the huge can of worms this alias is attached to. First of all species is not and has never been a purely objective/twys tag category, some outside or subjective context is required for identifying many species particularly fictional ones. Two as said this is just the tip of a huge iceberg that would be a fools erend to tackle for zero benefit. This alias would have to follow with the elimination of dozens possibly hundreds of other popular and obscure species that are bound to garner a whole alot of resistance and negatively impact searches and blacklists.

topic #19587

Some other common problem children:
Lizardfolk/ various lizardmen species
Dwarves
Werewolves
Chakats
Cerberus
Hydra
Leviathan
Lamia/naga
Kobolds
Goblins
Imps
Fairies
Spirits
Undead
Aliens
Hellhounds
...

ryu_deacon said:
Some other common problem children:
Lizardfolk/ various lizardmen species
Dwarves
Werewolves
Chakats
Cerberus
Hydra
Leviathan
Lamia/naga
Kobolds
Goblins
Imps
Fairies
Spirits
Undead
Aliens
Hellhounds
...

The only members on that list with similar ambiguity are fairies, spirits, and maybe aliens. Everything else runs by clear visual rules (including werewolves, where I would agree with the linked topic that a depiction of the transformation in the image is necessary, but that's still an unambiguous visual identifier).

y'know, if this had never been unaliased randomly without discussion I seriously doubt we'd ever even be having a reversed version of this conversation.

by the way here's the thread that I belive lead to Dice merging all of these tags in the first place.

ryu_deacon said:
Lizardfolk/ various lizardmen species

I wouldn't have any objections to burning lizardman to the ground, honestly. just alias it to scalie or reptile.

It's a type of demon, which in and of itself is very vague/broad and covers so many different types of designs it's a bit silly. Honestly, from the conventional use of 'succubus' it's useful for filtering out some (though far from all) of the more boring 'sexy lady (but with a tail, sometimes)' designs.

regsmutt said:
It's a type of demon, which in and of itself is very vague/broad and covers so many different types of designs it's a bit silly. Honestly, from the conventional use of 'succubus' it's useful for filtering out some (though far from all) of the more boring 'sexy lady (but with a tail, sometimes)' designs.

I don't think this is a valid use case. also doing this you're going to be filtering out a lot of stuff that isn't "generic sexy demon" characters, because this tag has no identity .

dba_afish said:
I don't think this is a valid use case. also doing this you're going to be filtering out a lot of stuff that isn't "generic sexy demon" characters, because this tag has no identity .

I mean the species tags have always been kinda lore adjacent, so it's not gonna be great
#

snpthecat said:
I mean the species tags have always been kinda lore adjacent, so it's not gonna be great

it being tagged by lore isn't the problem. like, I'm fine with demon, it's a more basic concept. it's definition is a bit self-referential, but it's not really trying to "be" anything that it isn't. lore tags still have coherent use cases, even if they're a bit different from normal TWYS tags.

but succubus ia another layer on top of that. it's essentially a hybridized tag (like what cub used to be but arguably worse) with a list of qualifying traits, both TWYS and lore, that's as long as your arm.

snpthecat said:
#

#

dba_afish said:
to me this really does not fit the use case for loreification. the problem with succubus isn't that it's not taggable by TWYS, the problem is that it lacks a coherent definition. we know what "trans" means, we know what family members are, "succubus" means maybe a dozen different things depending who you ask.

Family members lore is not as clear cut as trans, because there's no way tell without knowing already that the human and dog girl are brother and sister in this comic:
post #5109957

Or even step siblings as described and discussed in here: post #5109956

So basically there is a problem with using the lore tag for Succubus that it will have the same problem of "because I say so" reasoning that comes with people taking Creative Liberties with them to come up with their own kind of lore concerning them.
As someone who's in this camp, making it a lore tag is beneficial for me and anyone who likes alternate takes on them. But it's not helpful for anyone who's searching for a more Classic Look of a Succubus.

As I'm trying to stop the erasure of a 15-year-old tag because some people have problems with others taking Creative Liberties with the term.
So my compromise for making Succubus into a General Tag like Witch is Thus:
1. The Succubus in Question has to look like a demon.
2. They are shown using Life/Soul stealing abilities and/or transforming ablities that is directly tied to their target character in a picture or comic
3. Unless the character in the comic/picture directly says they are, they should not be tagged with Succubus.
4. Only official characters like verosika_mayday (like they have official merch or something similar) should have the Succubus tag by default.
5. While characters like Meri and Leader shouldn't have the tag unless they are following either Rules 1 or 2.

The succubus simply needs to fulfill one of these conditions to be qualified for the tag and that should be it.

Because if the whole point of this thread is to curb the Creative Liberty of the tag so it won't include characters with "Because I said so"/Lore excuse like Meri and Leader. And be more strict with what most people think of the first thing when they hear Succubus, which really is simply a "sexy" human/anthro like demon. Then this compromise of making into a general tag should work in stopping more like them appearing and removing tags slightly more justifiable and easier.

At the end of the day, people do look for the term for various reasons, like finding a good reference like looking for a particular kind of clothing design like a dress or skirt. If part of this discussion is more to help them, then getting rid of this old tag because you have a problem with artists and writers taking Creative Liberties with the term is not a real solution. You're just destroying the tree when it really needs just good pruning.

This isn't something as niche and new as Toonkind (it's hard to tell when there's a Living Cartoon character when they're by themselves and not around mostly realistic humans) or Cumporeon (It was being misused by people assuming too many white skin Vaporeon as one) where their removal kinda makes sense. This is something that IS basically being taken for granted that will just make looking for these kinds of demons unnecessarily harder on this site.

dba_afish said:
but succubus ia another layer on top of that. it's essentially a hybridized tag (like what cub used to be but arguably worse) with a list of qualifying traits, both TWYS and lore, that's as long as your arm.

I think you're overstating this. As Watsit explained upthread, concubi do have a pretty simple and coherent lore definition (demon that feeds on sexual/life energy). If we restrict the tag to that definition, I believe a lore tag would be viable.

1. The Succubus in Question has to look like a demon.

As previously stated, there is no objective definition of what "like a demon" looks like. The other points are fair, but requiring onscreen depiction of feeding on sexual energy would drastically cut down the number of posts that could be tagged with succubus.

jolem said:
Family members lore is not as clear cut as trans, because there's no way tell without knowing already that the human and dog girl are brother and sister in this comic:
post #5109957

Or even step siblings as described and discussed in here: post #5109956

*inhale*
A

I'm not arguing for the TWYS-ness of the familial relations tags, I'm saying we know what it means to when characters _are_ family members, or step family members, or adoptive family members.

I do not have a problem with tags defined by lore existing.

jolem said:
-SNIP-

the difference is that no one can agree on what *cubus means.

you're describing a hybridized tag, a bunch of conditional qualifiers tacked on to another existing tag. we nuked cub for this exact reason.

and it's not a 15 year old tag. it was aliased away in early-mid 2019 and reversed in late 2020 with no discussion. it's a 4 year old tag at most.

beholding said:
I think you're overstating this. As Watsit explained upthread, concubi do have a pretty simple and coherent lore definition (demon that feeds on sexual/life energy). If we restrict the tag to that definition, I believe a lore tag would be viable.

As previously stated, there is no objective definition of what "like a demon" looks like. The other points are fair, but requiring onscreen depiction of feeding on sexual energy would drastically cut down the number of posts that could be tagged with succubus.

then we should just _have_ a tag for that action, (we probably already do) not create a species tag.

the problem is, if even if we created a tag with a coherent definition, and we aliased all the *cubus tags to it, it's going to have aaall of the same problems because people are just going to add it, like they did before. and unless we have a dedicated tagger who assigns themself to keep the tag clean, it's always going to be a mess.

demon is the closest valid adjacent, doing anything other than aliasing to that does not make sense.

... Why is the nomenclature around sex/gender of the incubus/sucubus even a matter for debate? I thought they were literally the same demon... as in, the succubus steals and corrupts semen, turns into an incubus, then knocks up a human woman with a cambion?

Regardless, there is always an argument to be made for "this technically falls outside the scope of how tags are generally applied, however, this is still used" for retaining. And we all saw how getting rid of cub is still fucking us in the ass with needing to undo false positives on the nuke last year.

That said, however, I'm unsure how this would be applied logically, or made "cleaner". I would directly compare this to Panthers and "Jackals". They don't exist, they're hard to define beyond "black big cat" or "black dog with pointy ears that looks nothing like an jackal", but they are present and used. I do think we can probably come to at least a vague consensus on defining demonic traits, that said, that's not particularly difficult, we've had a few thousand years to settle on what an archetypical demon looks like, and perhaps those should be "Demon_(abrahamic)" or "Demon_(mythology)" or something, with any series or setting-specific demons getting their own appropriate tags if they stray far enough from that base template? The demons as described in the ars goetia are extremely variable and would likely all recieve assorted hybrid of chimera tagging, so that wouldn't work as a basline.

This issue may boil down to succubus/incubus relying on it's definition as "demonic sexified x", and we are using demon as a mythological wastebasket taxon similar to monster, dragon, and alien.
Mare_(demon) for those that are shown actively engaging in stereotypical behaviour, perhaps, otherwise, demon or demon+species? Would humanoid demons recieve demon+humanoid, demon+human, or be an exception with demonic_humanoid or similar? I think we might need to figure out the demon tag in general before we throw more shit into it to sort out, honestly, and that's... not a small project.

votp said:
And we all saw how getting rid of cub is still fucking us in the ass with needing to undo false positives on the nuke last year.

And we all see that this argument against getting rid of the cub tag is just as invalid as all the others

I have no idea what you mean by false positives (unless you're talking about the young human purge, which seems entirely irrelevant here and the tag wouldn't have had any effect either way)

votp said:
And we all saw how getting rid of cub is still fucking us in the ass with needing to undo false positives on the nuke last year.

???

do you have any examples of "false positives" that remain from the cubpocalypse? I'm not even really 100% sure what you could mean... there shouldn't be true false positives from the alias process since cub already implied young. and the tag script that was run only added the new tags to posts containing only one form of character.

I personally cleaned up the set myself 8 months ago, so unless I missed something glaring, no remnants should remain.

Text communicaton issue, tone does not translate. Intention was both humour and "unforseeable problems" that seem like a good idea on the surface. I probably could have worded that attempt at a joke better; been alternating between being passed out on the floor and moments of lucidity for the past thirty hours, that one's on me and the bug-brain not firing on all cylinders.

votp said:
Text communicaton issue, tone does not translate. Intention was both humour and "unforseeable problems" that seem like a good idea on the surface. I probably could have worded that attempt at a joke better; been alternating between being passed out on the floor and moments of lucidity for the past thirty hours, that one's on me and the bug-brain not firing on all cylinders.

wait, were you talking about false positives from the young human purge?

there's literally no way that the cubpocalypse made the negative results of the purge worse. if anything the cubpocalypse significantly reduced the amount of work needed to restore posts after the purge. if we didn't do the cubpocalypse, we probably wouldn't have the young_<form> and even if we had decided on creating those then, without the removal of cub kicking everyone in the ass to get moving, I'm not sure we would've gone through the effort of populating them, and without that we'd've had way more falsely purged posts.

votp said:
... Why is the nomenclature around sex/gender of the incubus/sucubus even a matter for debate? I thought they were literally the same demon... as in, the succubus steals and corrupts semen, turns into an incubus, then knocks up a human woman with a cambion?

This is only true for certain portrayals. Concubi are not part of official Christian canon, so every detail surrounding them is essentially fanfic and varies depending on the author. In most modern portrayals, they are different demons.

then we should just _have_ a tag for that action, (we probably already do) not create a species tag.

That's fair, actually, especially since there are creatures other than concubi who do the same thing.

...And we do in fact have a tag for that: energy drain