Topic: Tag implication: felkin -> dragon

The tag implication #70684 felkin -> dragon is pending approval.

Reason: Was originally going to request this as felkin > furred_dragon, but I'm not 100% certain that's the right move. But felkin > dragon is a lot easier case to make.

Tagging is split to ~1.9k results for "felkin dragon" and ~1.1k results for "felkin -dragon" (63/36 split), so there's not exactly consensus when people are tagging things as to whether they should be considered dragons or not. But if you look at the wiki page, they're described as "dragon-like" and both of the example images used (https://e621.net/posts/622880 and https://e621.net/posts/603036) are tagged as "dragon" (and also furred_dragon but we don't have to go that far just yet if that's a reach). So it certainly suggests that felkin should be tagged as dragon by default. This implication would just bring it in line with that.

Dragon-like doesn't mean is a dragon, and felkins aren't dragons nor intended to be dragons- they're mammals. The dragon tags on those two posts were added after upload by Chessax, and the original Furaffinity posts are not tagged as dragons - just felkins.
If someone says their felkin is a dragon, we generally have to take their word for it, but there are interpretations of felkins where they aren't, and the original creator of them (xenoforge) does not intend for them to be dragons. I feel like that should take precedence over the implication tree.

While most of the time they do look like dragons, I do not believe that they are always depicted in ways that looks like dragons. Some depictions appear more as just generic scalies, and some appear more like something else, and some lack enough traits that would allow identify them as dragons.

post #5933316 post #5923379 post #6039292

This is especially true in case of felkin hybrids.

post #5451603

moonlit-comet said:
Dragon-like doesn't mean is a dragon, and felkins aren't dragons nor intended to be dragons- they're mammals. The dragon tags on those two posts were added after upload by Chessax, and the original Furaffinity posts are not tagged as dragons - just felkins.
If someone says their felkin is a dragon, we generally have to take their word for it, but there are interpretations of felkins where they aren't, and the original creator of them (xenoforge) does not intend for them to be dragons. I feel like that should take precedence over the implication tree.

There's basically no difference in how people are tagging them though. That 63/36 split just screams "lol idk just do whatever you want". If the solution is to untag furred_dragon and dragon from any felkin posts that's fine by me, I just don't think the way it's currently implemented is consistent or conducive to easy searchability.

Even looking at Xenoforge's own gallery, only 5 of 66 felkin posts are tagged with only felkin, including the first felkin post they have in there. Though I will admit that it wasn't without some back and forth as to whether it was considered a dragon or not back then, but that was back when felkins weren't the most well-known thing.

EDIT: And if it's only a "most of the time" thing, I could start working on filling in those 1.1k posts

cobaltcaribou said:

Even looking at Xenoforge's own gallery, only 5 of 66 felkin posts are tagged with only felkin, including the first felkin post they have in there.

Are you looking at the search query of xenoforge felkin? None of those posts are uploaded or tagged by xenoforge herself and most of xenoforge's felkin art [the original uploads, at least] has lost sources. I don't think that's a very good source for creator's consensus on whether or not they are meant to be mammals.
The official 2019 reference [the most recent one] linked on the wiki claims they are mammals and says nothing about dragons, and that winged versions are outdated.

moonlit-comet said:
The official 2019 reference [the most recent one] linked on the wiki claims they are mammals and says nothing about dragons, and that winged versions are outdated.

I'm also looking through their gallery and all the felkins are just tagged as felkin. I guess that means it's time for some tag removals lmao

Generally, I don't think we would imply a "real-world" species with a fictional species, similarly to how the Pokemon species tags are treated (i.e., only broad categories can be applied).

In this case, Felkins are designed like dragons and it wouldn't be a problem tagging it alongside dragon.
However, not all Felkins may look like dragons, so it would be inappropriate to automatically imply all Felkins as a type of dragon.

EDIT: On second thought, maybe dragon could be considered as a "broad category" considering it also includes other more "horse-like" fictional species like Longma and Kirin?

See also:

• Dutch_Angel_Dragon, which does not imply dragon despite the name.
• Sergal, which does not imply mammal even though they look like it in most cases.
• Worgen, canonically a werewolf-like species but it gets implied with the broader werecanid category.

thegreatwolfgang said:

In this case, Felkins are designed like dragons and it wouldn't be a problem tagging it alongside dragon.
However, not all Felkins may look like dragons, so it would be inappropriate to automatically imply all Felkins as a type of dragon.

Edit: I feel like there was a similar situation with Pandaren being giant_pandas or not but I don’t know the resolution on that. Gotta love tagging fictional species :)

That makes sense.

So would your average felkin post on here (fur, dragon shaped, looks like the reference images in the wiki) be improved by adding furred_dragon? Just want to make sure I’m making the right edits here

cobaltcaribou said:
That makes sense.

So would your average felkin post on here (fur, dragon shaped, looks like the reference images in the wiki) be improved by adding furred_dragon? Just want to make sure I’m making the right edits here

Yes, it can be tagged with furred_dragon whenever appropriate. It should not be done so in cases where it definitely does not look the part.