Implicating Pokephilia → interspecies
Link to implication

Reason:

It's explicitly stated it's interspecies with a Pokemon-specific direction, humans or furries both. sub-3K images to the tag, felt unsure about suggesting alias, so went with implication instead.

You mean this hasn't been done already? I approve.

BTW, you should be implicating "Poképhilia". Yes, the accent mark makes a difference.

Sounds good.
...and perhaps it (or interspecies) should also be implicated to sex..

Genjar said:
Sounds good.
...and perhaps it (or interspecies) should also be implicated to sex..

Nope, kissing could still be tagged as pokephilia.

1) I don't do special characters. If the admin doing it wants to fix it, by all means. Personally, I find it really stupid that we use it because no one is ever really going to search for it with the acute diacritic mark- Well, unless they are ESL and thus have a standard typing scheme that actually includes diacritical characters.

2) Interspecies, as Hammie stated, is used for any inter-species sexual interaction, from simple kissing to full blown intercourse. Pokephilia's wiki page states it's for sex specifically, but I think it's a bit broader than that, being interspecies specifically targetted at pokemon.

3) What would people think about an alias instead? I mean, searching pokemon + interspecies = pokephilia tag as it stands right now.

123easy said:
What would people think about an alias instead? I mean, searching pokemon + interspecies = pokephilia tag as it stands right now.

Bad idea. Let's say we have a picture of skitty on wailord action. They are both Pokémon, but they are both still different species of Pokémon and thus tagged with the interspecies tag. A search for Pokémon + interspecies as you would have it would include such images. If someone is looking for human/furry on Pokémon specifically, then the Poképhilia tag is what they would use to search for it.

Halite said:
Nope, kissing could still be tagged as pokephilia.

Not according to the wiki. Pokephilia: "Sex between Pokémon and anyone else but another Pokémon".

Kissing is not sex.

Genjar said:
Not according to the wiki. Pokephilia: "Sex between Pokémon and anyone else but another Pokémon".

Kissing is not sex.

O rly?

Another tag made more vague, and as far as I'm concerned, less useful. It also invalidated this implication, since romantic interaction isn't tagged as interspecies.

Could we at least discuss the wiki changes before... you know, changing them on a whim?

Genjar said:
Another tag made more vague, and as far as I'm concerned, less useful. It also invalidated this implication, since romantic interaction isn't tagged as interspecies.

Could we at least discuss the wiki changes before... you know, changing them on a whim?

Simply correcting it to accurately describe current usage.

Halite said:
Simply correcting it to accurately describe current usage.

Current usage?
There are 2445 images tagged with Pokephilia, vast majority of which are about pokemon/non-pokemon sex. There's less than a page of images that aren't rated explicit, and those can be considered to be mistagged.

In addition, the original wiki description was written by an admin. And we've been told here on the forums to use it for sex by an another admin. So that's how I've been using that tag.

How come you can suddenly decide that it should now cover everything from romantic dinners to sex?

Kissing is a sexual interaction, and thus should still be covered. a philia is a love of something after all, and it literally does mean 'loving', in the sense of having an attraction beyond the norm towards. I mean, most owners of cats and dogs give them 'kisses' and don't mind doggy or kitty versions of 'kisses', but not full on snogging- Which would be classified as zoophilia, by the by- or romantic candle-lit dinners, because that is abnormal love. ;)

In short, I'm in agreement with Hammie's edit.

FatherOfGray said:
Bad idea. Let's say we have a picture of skitty on wailord action. They are both Pokémon, but they are both still different species of Pokémon and thus tagged with the interspecies tag. A search for Pokémon + interspecies as you would have it would include such images. If someone is looking for human/furry on Pokémon specifically, then the Poképhilia tag is what they would use to search for it.

Actually, we shouldn't be tagging that, because those catagories are actually subspecies to the Species/Genus/Family/Order/Class/Kingdom etc., 'Pokemon'. Masuda is quoted as saying, "...on Earth we have mammals and reptiles all these different categories. In the world of Pokémon, they are all Pokémon." The closest that they have to species are the egg groups, if you wanted to try and get really technical, because of interbreeding- but they all can interbreed with Ditto, which throws that theory out the window (Yes, I know about the 'Undiscovered' Egg Group, but that exists for balance reasons. Imagine a perfectly grown Legendary from scratch with perfect EVs and parental movesets. Too stronk).

123easy said:
Actually, we shouldn't be tagging that, because those catagories are actually subspecies to the Species/Genus/Family/Order/Class/Kingdom etc., 'Pokemon'. Masuda is quoted as saying, "...on Earth we have mammals and reptiles all these different categories. In the world of Pokémon, they are all Pokémon." The closest that they have to species are the egg groups, if you wanted to try and get really technical, because of interbreeding- but they all can interbreed with Ditto, which throws that theory out the window (Yes, I know about the 'Undiscovered' Egg Group, but that exists for balance reasons. Imagine a perfectly grown Legendary from scratch with perfect EVs and parental movesets. Too strong).

...Did you analyze the quote you just cited at all? He mentions mammals and reptiles. Those are classes, not species. Besides, nobody cares what Masuda has to say. Only Satoshi Tajiri's word holds any real weight. Even if it did, since when do we give a fuck what the artist/creator of a work has to say when it comes to tagging? Our TWYS policy means that if we see a character and it looks like a sheep, we tag it as such, even if the creator says its actually a wolf in disguise. Tagging it as anything else could only be justified by the use of outside information, which we try to minimize here on e621. Outside info and additional notes are what the description box is for.

But let's for a moment entertain your hilarious notion that not only does what Masuda say matters, but that he also meant what you interpreted him to say. By that logic there are no subclassifications of Pokémon whatsoever (which we know to be false). This means we could totally just alias all Pokémon species to Pokémon. What's that? You want to search for Charizard specifically? Well tough shit! You're just going to have to shift through the Pokémon tag for the pictures you want, sucker!

A couple things I'd like to throw in here, pokephilia was indeed used to denote sexual interactions between humans and pokemon, this usually should exclude simple kissing.
Except french kisses and the likes which are rather clear in their meaning.

Second, changing the wiki to be more precise or clear is always very welcome, changing the meaning of a tag without prior discussion is not, wiki vandalism can very easily lead to bans. With that said, reverted for the time being, discussion on changing the tag is welcome though, just no change by a single person and literally no approval from anyone.

The Pokémon tag is used instead of the Pokemon tag because it is the more correct one and the way our aliases work make both usable anyway, it just looks better.
We just have to be aware of implications and all that to ensure no strange behavior shows up.

On the interspecies with pokemon, I'm unsure how we should handle this, one possible solution may be to treat every pokemon type as a different species and use interspecies + pokemon to allow search for any combination of pokemon with different pokemon/furries/dragons/humans/zombies/whatever and use pokephilia to allow search for specifically pokemon + human/(anthro-)furry. That way we sharpen the search while still allowing a broader interspecies search.

And last but not least, let's stay civil in here, don't attack the speaker, attack the arguments, I'd rather not have to lock this up.

Genjar said:
Current usage?
There are 2445 images tagged with Pokephilia, vast majority of which are about pokemon/non-pokemon sex. There's less than a page of images that aren't rated explicit, and those can be considered to be mistagged.

In addition, the original wiki description was written by an admin. And we've been told here on the forums to use it for sex by an another admin. So that's how I've been using that tag.

How come you can suddenly decide that it should now cover everything from romantic dinners to sex?

It is also used to tag intimate, but nonsexual interaction between humans and pokemon.
I'm not "suddenly deciding", it's how it's being used.

There are also hundreds of images that are explicit and tagged with pokephilia, but don't depict actual sex, so the tag needed clarification since someone thought the wording sufficient to implicate sex to it which would cause massive mistagging.

My edit of the wiki was an attempt at clarification, not a change of the tag, I may have been a bit too broad in my rewording, but neither is the current wording sufficient to describe the usage of the tag accurately.

Halite said:
It is also used to tag intimate, but nonsexual interaction between humans and pokemon. I'm not "suddenly deciding", it's how it's being used.

That's how it's being mistagged.

Which is no justification for changing it. Nonsexual interaction does not belong under that tag. I browsed all the earlier mentions of it on this forum, and until now, it's always been listed as an explicit sex tag.

So the tag itself is fine, it just requires occasional cleanup. Like numerous others.
And I'd like to point that it'd take a lot less work to clean it up than to change the definition, because that'd mean we'd have to go through every single pokemon image and tag hundreds of them with it.

Genjar said:
That's how it's being mistagged.

Which is no justification for changing it. Nonsexual interaction does not belong under that tag. I browsed all the earlier mentions of it on this forum, and until now, it's always been listed as an explicit sex tag.

So the tag itself is fine, it just requires occasional cleanup. Like numerous others.
And I'd like to point that it'd take a lot less work to clean it up than to change the definition, because that'd mean we'd have to go through every single pokemon image and tag hundreds of them with it.

Deciding that the current wiki definition is 100% correct simply because that's what it originally was written to be is all kinds of wrong. While the wiki does give you a standpoint from which to to base considerations from, if a tag is not being used by the strict wiki definition because it has other/broader meanings, then the definition should change with the usage. The fact remains that it is used for any pokemon/non-pokemon relations of any sexual nature, and while a romantic dinner might fall outside the purview of how most people see it (though by strict etymological standards it should) kissing, fondling, and other obvious signs of sexual interest do.

FatherOfGray said:
By that logic there are no subclassifications of Pokémon whatsoever (which we know to be false). This means we could totally just alias all Pokémon species to Pokémon. What's that? You want to search for Charizard specifically? Well tough shit! You're just going to have to shift through the Pokémon tag for the pictures you want, sucker!

Apparently you have a penchant for hyperbolism. For one, subspecies is in fact a classification. Two, why would we alias all Pokemon when we have families (canines, bovines, felines, all in unscientific terminology but understandable because next to no one bothers to remember terms like canidae, felidae, and bovidae, though we group them more closely as bovinae, the subfamily), which is what the tag 'Pokemon' should be and is used as? Yes, we also tag Arcanine with canine, but that's more about the general physical structure and the real-world animal basis, rather than any particular genetic quality it shares with canines.

Now, taking the whimsical and fantastical out of it all, because you don't seem to understand when humour is being employed- the fact remains that they are all able to interbreed with Ditto, and others within the same egg groups, and even have shared common ancestry with humanity in the Pokemon world (though far back enough that the term "Pokemon" cannot apply to humans in any form, apparently), and so cannot be their own species by Mendelian genetics' standards. In short, Mendelian genetics simply don't apply to Pokemon, and while it's really silly (but fun!) to do so, what we should be doing is treating them as all just being Pokemon and the type of Pokemon they are.

Genjar said:
That's how it's being mistagged.

Which is no justification for changing it. Nonsexual interaction does not belong under that tag. I browsed all the earlier mentions of it on this forum, and until now, it's always been listed as an explicit sex tag.

So the tag itself is fine, it just requires occasional cleanup. Like numerous others.
And I'd like to point that it'd take a lot less work to clean it up than to change the definition, because that'd mean we'd have to go through every single pokemon image and tag hundreds of them with it.

post #399425
post #399960
post #398263
post #398144
post #389024
post #391583
post #388438
post #388273
post #371371
post #371342
So, these totally aren't pokephilia then according to your definition?
Because they aren't sex.

Halite said:
So, these totally aren't pokephilia then according to your definition?
Because they aren't sex.

Are you seriously claiming that those are nonsexual?

I'm for changing the tag meaning to be similar to gay tag. So not only sex, but also other kind of romantic interaction.

One advantage of this is that by this way it's still easy to filter pictures with other meaning - just search for pokephilia sex.

Also IMO this meaning more fits the name of the tag than just pure sex.

@Halite
I think that better example is this picture
post #297383

absolutely not explicit, and IMO it's logical to tag it pokephilia.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
One advantage of this is that by this way it's still easy to filter pictures with other meaning - just search for pokephilia sex.

I consider that to be a disadvantage. I'm constantly hitting the tag search limit already, that'd only make it harder to find what I'm looking for.

Genjar said:
Are you seriously claiming that those are nonsexual?

They aren't non-sexual, but sexual =/= sex tag.

Halite said:
They aren't non-sexual, but sexual =/= sex tag.

What does that have to do with the discussion? I said earlier, and I repeat: "Nonsexual interaction does not belong under that tag."

I never said that sexual interaction shouldn't tagged with it.

Genjar said:
What does that have to do with the discussion? I said earlier, and I repeat: "Nonsexual interaction does not belong under that tag."

I never said that sexual interaction shouldn't tagged with it.

You said it should imply "sex" which means that only images involving sex should be tagged with it.
That's how implications work.

So, by saying that, you are saying that sexual interaction that isn't sex shouldn't be tagged as pokephilia.

Genjar said:
What does that have to do with the discussion? I said earlier, and I repeat: "Nonsexual interaction does not belong under that tag."

I never said that sexual interaction shouldn't tagged with it.

Halite said:
You said it should imply "sex" which means that only images involving sex should be tagged with it.
That's how implications work.

So, by saying that, you are saying that sexual interaction that isn't sex shouldn't be tagged as pokephilia.

Additionally, the current wiki definition explicitly states "sex" alone, not "sexual interactions", which is inaccurate.

Thanks for the support btw, Gilda.

Halite said:
You said it should imply "sex" which means that only images involving sex should be tagged with it.
That's how implications work.

So, by saying that, you are saying that sexual interaction that isn't sex shouldn't be tagged as pokephilia.

I am getting tired of repeating myself. I said: "perhaps it should be implicated to sex". Perhaps. Because I still remember the admins telling us that's how it should be used.

Changing the wording of pokephilia to sexual activity? Sure, that'd be fine. It'd, among other things, cover the image that Gilda posted. French kissing is sexual, as NotMeNotYou already said. But nonsexual interactions should not be added to that tag.

Seriously, what's the point of making a tag so vague that it's close to useless unless you add extra tags to the search? Not only does it make it harder for us to find what we're looking for, it usually also creates an another mess to be constantly cleaned up. Just look at back_turned, for instance. It got aliased with rear_view, and is now frequently confused with from_behind -- which requires almost daily cleanup. Broadening the definition of pokephilia would have the same effect: a lot of extra work for no significant gain.

I think that we should use discussion on this tag to standarize what other similar tags mean.

For example anthro_on_feral wiki states:

Images or animations depicting an anthropomorphic character engaging in sexual activities with a feral character.

while feral_on_feral wiki states:

Used when two (or more) ferals are depicted sexually or romantically.
This includes things other than penetrative sex, such as oral sex, cuddling and kissing.

IMO these tags, pokephilia, and other like gay, straight, dickgirl_on_male, etc. are really similar, and should have similar definitions. I'm more comfortable with feral_on_feral like definition, but no matter what will be decided by admins IMO it should be applied to all X_on_Y type tags.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
IMO these tags, pokephilia, and other like gay, straight, dickgirl_on_male, etc. are really similar, and should have similar definitions. I'm more comfortable with feral_on_feral like definition, but no matter what will be decided by admins IMO it should be applied to all X_on_Y type tags.

I agree.

One more question: is the "The Pokémon should be feral unless it's already anthropomorphic (Gardevoir and Lopunny for example)." part really necessary? Why allow to tag this for only part of anthro pokemons, leaving anthrofied ones out? It sounds unnecessary complicated, just like old anthro tag rule.

BTW I'm still for changing it to sexual or romantic things, and standardize it to all similar tags.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
BTW I'm still for changing it to sexual or romantic things, and standardize it to all similar tags.

And I'm still against that, for the same reason. To keep it standard with the other similar tags, such as anthro_on_feral. Which is strictly for sexual activities, not for 'romantic things'.

Genjar said:
And I'm still against that, for the same reason. To keep it standard with the other similar tags, such as anthro_on_feral. Which is strictly for sexual activities, not for 'romantic things'.

And I'm for keeping pictures like
post #341878
tagged as anthro_on_feral.
Similarly to other all gender_on_gender tags that includes gay, straight, and lesbian

BTW. Bestiality wiki is a little messy.

Images and animations depicting the practice of engaging in sexual activities with non-human animals.

So, sexual activities

Frequently, if understandably, misspelled "beastiality". Not exactly the same thing as merely being attracted to animals, which is known as zoophilia, but for the purposes of streamlining, both terms use this tag.

So, not only sexual activities?

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
One more question: is the "The Pokémon should be feral unless it's already anthropomorphic (Gardevoir and Lopunny for example)." part really necessary? Why allow to tag this for only part of anthro pokemons, leaving anthrofied ones out? It sounds unnecessary complicated, just like old anthro tag rule.

BTW I'm still for changing it to sexual or romantic things, and standardize it to all similar tags.

What the first part is saying is that there are some pokemon that are naturally anthropomorphic in the sense that they are up on two legs, they have two arms, and are generally human-shaped, like Gardevoir or Lopunny. Blaziken is another example of this. This was to, I assume, make it standard with "bestiality"; where feralxhuman and feralxanthro is tagged but anthroxhuman (furries) is not.

Personally, I think this should go the way of the dodo and follow the lines of the refitted Anthro tag. Further, I think I've gotten the right word for the definition; Intimate relations, rather than sexual, or romantic. y/n?

123easy said:
What the first part is saying is that there are some pokemon that are naturally anthropomorphic in the sense that they are up on two legs, they have two arms, and are generally human-shaped, like Gardevoir or Lopunny. Blaziken is another example of this. This was to, I assume, make it standard with "bestiality"; where feralxhuman and feralxanthro is tagged but anthroxhuman (furries) is not.

If this part was to make it equivalent of bestiality then it fails. Pictures of human fucking anthro pokemon like Lucario are compatible with this definition. Moreover pictures of feral non-pokemon fucking feral pokemon also pass this definition. Currently pokephilia has nothing to do with bestiality.

Even more "fun" begins when you begin to wonder how to tag human fucking gastly or electrode. Is electrode feral, anthro, or neither?
After whole mess with anthro tag is over, I'm planning to revive Azazial's suggestion made in forum #72311 to divide characters into more groups than just human/anthro/feral.

Personally, I think this should go the way of the dodo and follow the lines of the refitted Anthro tag. Further, I think I've gotten the right word for the definition; Intimate relations, rather than sexual, or romantic. y/n?

To be honest I wanted it to be like: couple definition + sex without affection.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
If this part was to make it equivalent of bestiality then it fails. Pictures of human fucking anthro pokemon like Lucario are compatible with this definition.

Human fucking an ape would generally be considered bestiality, yes?
Then what's the difference between that and a human fucking an Infernape? Tagging that as pokephilia seems like the pokemon equivalent to me.

Moreover pictures of feral non-pokemon fucking feral pokemon also pass this definition. Currently pokephilia has nothing to do with bestiality.

Yes, this is a problem. Though again, I don't agree with the second statement.

Even more "fun" begins when you begin to wonder how to tag human fucking gastly or electrode. Is electrode feral, anthro, or neither?

Feral.
I'm not even entirely convinced that humanoid species such as Infernape and Lucario should be tagged as anthros either, since they're essentially wild animals. And the feral wiki notes that "some creatures animal form are already bipedal (and) animals in this form are also considered to be feral."

Pokemorphs, on the other hand, are clearly anthros.

After whole mess with anthro tag is over, I'm planning to revive Azazial's suggestion made in forum #72311 to divide characters into more groups than just human/anthro/feral.

Supported. There were some good ideas in that thread.

Human fucking an ape would generally be considered bestiality, yes?
Then what's the difference between that and a human fucking an Infernape?

Feral.
I'm not even entirely convinced that humanoid species such as Infernape and Lucario should be tagged as anthros either, since they're essentially wild animals. And the feral wiki notes that "some creatures animal form are already bipedal (and) animals in this form are also considered to be feral."

So, you're basically suggesting that we should only tag as anthro creatures that are based on four legged animals? No offense, but I think that you managed to suggest definition of anthro that is even worse, and more unintuitive than previous one.

On which bipedal animal is Lucario based? Are we going to tag differently similar creatures just because their ancestry, is it really TWYS? What about hybrids/chimeras etc? If it has a monkey part does the creature can't get anthro tag no matter how anthrofied it gets?

I personally rather have all apes tagged as anthro than this. Personally if search on bestiality is going to return me human fucking Lucario or human fucking Gardevoir then this tag is just useless to me.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
So, you're basically suggesting that anthrofied and anthro tag should be aliased, and we should only tag as anthro creatures that are based on four legged animals?

No.

Here's how I would tag them:
Feral:
post #185728 post #108736

Anthro:
post #306440 post #390018

Genjar said:
No.

Here's how I would tag them:
Feral:
post #185728 post #108736

Anthro:
post #306440 post #390018

The only difference I see there are breasts. Apparently having tits is what humanity is about. If that's how bestiality is going to be tagged then IMO it may be completely removed as well.

Seriously am I the only one blind here or is there someone else who, based on this post, don't understand which pictures should be tagged as anthro, and which shouldn't.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
The only difference I see there are breasts.

Look closer. Completely different builds, and one of the anthros has hands instead of paws. The first two are clearly the original species, while the other two are anthropomorphized pokemorphs.

If that's how bestiality is going to be tagged then IMO it may be completely removed as well.

And no, those wouldn't be tagged as bestiality. But as its pokemon equivalent, which is pokephilia. Since there are many users who believe that sex with pokemon (even feral) doesn't count as bestiality.

As I said, I'm of the personal opinion that it needs to be more than just anthropomorphic (human-like) in limb placement to qualify for anthro, so that feral bipedal two-armed creatures are properly accounted for...

That said, many images with feral beasts and feral pokemon show human-like characteristics or motivations (Blaziken being hot for trainer (hah, pun) being one example; We've never seen any indication that pokemon go into heat (hah, another pun!) or anything beyond the mysterious goings-on (read:fucking like animals) that only occurs in the Daycare, in the games, really) so that technically counts under the definition of anthropomorphic...?

Of course, if we try to narrow down the definition to only resembling humans physically, as is more commonly done with feral non-human-level-intelligence animals (dogs, cats, horses, etc. that then become furries), then we need a guideline for how we define a large enough change from the original; "because tits" obviously isn't a good enough reason on its own, but general body shape becoming more designed like a human's, losing some features they exhibit as a 'feral' creature in favour for full thighs, full calves, etc. humanizing the faces somewhat, giving human genitals/sexual organs ('because tits' falls in this catagory)... bleh. I dunno where all I'm going with this, really, because the more I write the mre it feels like it's a bit of a subjective tag; "where do you draw the line at what defines a creature as anthro compared to its feral counterpart? Even though a creature might be intelligent and talk and have human-like mannerisms, motivations, and other characteristics, but the body isn't human-like, it should then be feral because it's not physically representative", and so on. Blah.

EDIT:

Genjar said:
And no, those wouldn't be tagged as bestiality. But as its pokemon equivalent, which is pokephilia. Since there are many users who believe that sex with pokemon (even feral) doesn't count as bestiality.

Pokemon are intelligent. We see this in the fact that they can understand human speech, and even communicate with humans directly, even if they cannot speak a human language. Further we can see that they all share a mutual understanding of poke-speak that is at least as complex if not moreso than human language. we know the most common reason that pokemon attack humans is not to just flat out attack them but to show off for them, in an attempt to impress the human, so they will want to capture and train them. Maybe they have a training fetish? iunno. But they are intelligent, that we know. (And if movies are canon, at the very least some pokemon can speak with humans, if through telepathy or mental domination of another who can speak).

Genjar said:
Look closer. Completely different builds, and one of the anthros has hands instead of paws. The first two are clearly the original species, while the other two are anthropomorphized pokemorphs.

No, just no. It's like saying that these two pictures:
post #26660
post #6276
are not anthro, but feral. This is just bad.

And no, those wouldn't be tagged as bestiality. But as its pokemon equivalent, which is pokephilia. Since there are many users who believe that sex with pokemon (even feral) doesn't count as bestiality.

NO. Making tags just as fandom equivalent of bestiality because of fandom's whining is bad. Really bad. When I search for bestiality I want to get human fucking feral, not bipedal, vulpix. Because someone who doesn't know anything about pokemon see just human fucking a fox.

It was ruled many times that human or anthro fucking feral pokemon gets bestiality tag. If we're going to make exceptions for fandoms (next is pony fandom whining that human on pony is not bestiality) then bestiality tag is useless. This is worse than whole Pinkamena thing, I'm against fandom bullshit.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
No, just no. It's like saying that these two pictures:
post #26660
post #6276
are not anthro, but feral.

I'd try to refute that, but I'm not sure how you even came to that conclusion. And if actually you think that I'd call those ferals, then clearly I've made some mistakes in trying to explain my position. Wouldn't be the first time, since English is my third language.

NO. Making tags just as fandom equivalent of bestiality because of fandom's whining is bad. Really bad.

Nonetheless, that's what it was created for: forum #19661
And it hasn't been changed or even discussed again since then. Until now.

I know that some taggers have started using the tag in a different way, but from what I've seen, changing the definition of an old tag without discussing it first is generally considered to be mistagging.

It was ruled many times that human or anthro fucking feral pokemon gets bestiality tag.

Sources?

Quote from forum #70860:

tony311 said:
I'm not 100% sure on these but I'm pretty sure this is what we use:

Sex between human and Pokemon: pokephilia
Sex between anthro and Pokemon: No idea, probably no special tag?
Sex between human and anthro: human_on_anthro
Sex between human and non-anthro: bestiality
Sex between anthro and non-anthro: anthro_on_feral

Genjar said:
I'd try to refute that, but I'm not sure how you even came to that conclusion. And if actually you think that I'd call those ferals, then clearly I've made some mistakes in trying to explain my position. Wouldn't be the first time, since English is my third language.

I see no difference between front paws in my pictures, and Lucarios' front paws which are in pictures you labeled as feral. I also fail to see any other significant in body between "feral lucarios" and "anthro lucarios". And I doubt that anyone else will.

Sources?

Quote from forum #70860:

https://e621.net/forum/show/54141

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
I see no difference between front paws in my pictures, and Lucarios' front paws which are in pictures you labeled as feral. I also fail to see any other significant in body between "feral lucarios" and "anthro lucarios". And I doubt that anyone else will.

https://e621.net/forum/show/54141

A wolf doesn't stand on bipedal legs and have humanoid arms that end in paws. -.- Trying to pull pieces of the whole out to attack, and to use an image as an example that doesn't even reference the topic at hand other than tangentially because it also has paws for hands (thus the whole singling out a point issue) rather than add the explanations to the previous points is bad form, Gilda.

Lucario's base form is bipedal with reverse joint legs that end in arched paws (digitigrade feet), and the arms end in paws for hands. If a Lucario has front-bending legs that resemble human legs in proportion rather than a Lucario's (no super-thick thigh with thin calf), plantigrade feet (human feet), or humanoid hands rather than paws, it is detailing some primary anthropomorphism. All traits combined would be complete primary anthropomorphism, and the inclusion of sexual organs such as humanoid breasts, humanoid vagina, humanoid penis (secondary anthropomorphism) would be complete anthropomorphism.

"Primary" is only named such because of lack of definition according to sex, so males or females or alt-sexed characters (herms, cuntboys, dickgirls, futanari, neuter, etc) can display these traits without issue equally, whilst sexual organs are secondary as they are specific to each sex.