Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions
The tag implication #69284 sergal_penis -> penis has been rejected.
Reason: not implied yet, it seems obvious why it should be imo
EDIT: The tag implication sergal_penis -> penis (forum #467646) has been rejected by @disposableyeens.
Updated by auto moderator
Sergals are fictional creatures, so there's really no saying what kind of penis a "sergal penis" is. At best there may be an official "canon" penis design for them, but quite a few posts seem to be just sergal+penis. Even if what I'm seeing is the canon design, it's pretty generic looking and not worth tagging IMO; don't forget that <species>_genitalia tags apply regardless of the species with said genitalia (e.g. we still tag canine_penis on a cat or dragon, as long as it looks like a canine's penis), so sergal_penis would apply to anything with a similar looking penis. And we should consider that, being a fictional species, there's nothing stopping the penis design from being retconned in canon, causing the tag to become outdated or confused.
watsit said:
Sergals are fictional creatures, so there's really no saying what kind of penis a "sergal penis" is. At best there may be an official "canon" penis design for them, but quite a few posts seem to be just sergal+penis. Even if what I'm seeing is the canon design, it's pretty generic looking and not worth tagging IMO; don't forget that <species>_genitalia tags apply regardless of the species with said genitalia (e.g. we still tag canine_penis on a cat or dragon, as long as it looks like a canine's penis), so sergal_penis would apply to anything with a similar looking penis. And we should consider that, being a fictional species, there's nothing stopping the penis design from being retconned in canon, causing the tag to become outdated or confused.
good point, I will remove the request
The tag implication sergal_penis -> penis (forum #467646) has been rejected by @disposableyeens.
The bulk update request #12276 is pending approval.
create alias sergal_penis (986) -> penis (1827415)
Reason: Sergals are fictional creatures and thus do not have a specific type of penis that can be reliably tagged
donovan_dmc said:
The bulk update request #12276 is pending approval.create alias sergal_penis (986) -> penis (1827415)
Reason: Sergals are fictional creatures and thus do not have a specific type of penis that can be reliably tagged
There is canonical sergal penis though. Which is what I used that tag for.
So I would personally prefer the tag wasnt removed! O_O
Sergal enthusiasts like me would know what it means.
The alias might clutter the autocomplete, and there's already sergal-fox -> hybrid pushing down relevant results
Also there's the issue of someone tagging anatomically correct on basically 90% of sergal_penis
See sergal_penis anatomically_correct
Also all I see is just sergal + penis, and there's absolutely nothing pointing me to the contrary
Updated
disposableyeens said:
There is canonical sergal penis though. Which is what I used that tag for.
If there's actually a canonical sergal penis design that would, in my opinion, be a very different situation to things like dragon_penis which have been aliased away for not having one standardardised design.
Are there any official references to support the canonical sergal penis? I'm not all too familiar with sergals, but if it can be proven to be a real distinct thing, I'd be willing to support keeping it.
faucet said:
If there's actually a canonical sergal penis design that would, in my opinion, be a very different situation to things like dragon_penis which have been aliased away for not having one standardardised design.Are there any official references to support the canonical sergal penis? I'm not all too familiar with sergals, but if it can be proven to be a real distinct thing, I'd be willing to support keeping it.
I'd like to point to this earlier:
watsit said:
And we should consider that, being a fictional species, there's nothing stopping the penis design from being retconned in canon, causing the tag to become outdated or confused.
Real animal penises can't just be spontaneously changed
faucet said:
If there's actually a canonical sergal penis design that would, in my opinion, be a very different situation to things like dragon_penis which have been aliased away for not having one standardardised design.Are there any official references to support the canonical sergal penis? I'm not all too familiar with sergals, but if it can be proven to be a real distinct thing, I'd be willing to support keeping it.
Mick39, the creator of sergals, did make official reference guides for sergal anatomy, which included depictions of sergal genatalia.
https://www.furaffinity.net/view/22519217/
Mick39's art overall depicts the canon anatomy too.
For canon female sergal anatomy, the tag "prehensile clitoral hood" works almost perfectly imo.
(Similar to how "knotted equine penis" works for male felkin anatomy, it is descriptive of the shape.)
Male sergals have balls and a sheath, but their canon penis shape is distinct and has lots of art for reference.
So I think a specific tag could work.
Updated
disposableyeens said:
Male sergals have balls and a sheath, but their canon penis shape is distinct and has lots of art for reference.
So I think a specific tag could work.
From what I see with the tag currently, it's not very distinct. If the canon design is more distinct, then I think it's applied too loosely here to be of use. I've seen more difference in various canine_penises than sergal_penises compared to humanoid_penises.
watsit said:
From what I see with the tag currently, it's not very distinct. If the canon design is more distinct, then I think it's applied too loosely here to be of use. I've seen more difference in various canine_penises than sergal_penises compared to humanoid_penises.
I have had a browse through the "sergal_penis" tag and you are right.
For the tag to work, I think it would need to be made more specific, and the wiki or description of the tag would benefit from reference images and a description.
Updated
