Aliasing species_request → unknown_species
Link to alias

Reason:

Species_request is largely unused but some people (myself included) use it by mistake.

EDIT: The tag alias species_request -> unknown_species (forum #207034) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.

-1
Species request is a very valid tag. If we were to alias those two terms, then by that logic, we'd have to alias translation_request to unknown_language.

Species request means that the person tagging doesn't know the species name and is asking others to fill it in.. Unknown means the species doesn't have one (yet).

"Character request" is similar, for when the tagger doesn't know a character's name but knows there is one.

furrin_gok said:
Species request means that the person tagging doesn't know the species name and is asking others to fill it in.. Unknown means the species doesn't have one (yet).

The wikis are contradictory here.

species request says:
This tag is intended as a tagme for the species presented.

If the species is confirmed by the artist to not be named, you should use unknown_species instead.

unknown species says:
Images or animations in which it isn't clear what species a character is intended to be.

There isn't an artist request tag to indicate "the person tagging doesn't know the artist name and is asking others to fill it in", that's covered by unknown artist, so unknown species makes sense to use when the tagger doesn't know and someone else should fill it in. anonymous or unnamed would be more correct for something that is otherwise identifiable by the tagger, but just has no publicized name (purposely lacking, not unknown).

translation_request is used when someone's asking for others to create/add a translation as the post is currently lacking one, which makes species_request sound like someone's asking for others to create/add a species as the post is currently lacking one, which makes no sense. Since the wiki and taggers use species request in the way unknown species should be used, and artist request is aliased away to unknown artist, this gets a +1 from me to follow suit.

+1 for the same reason as Watsit

watsit said:
The wikis are contradictory here.

There isn't an artist request tag to indicate "the person tagging doesn't know the artist name and is asking others to fill it in", that's covered by unknown artist, so unknown species makes sense to use when the tagger doesn't know and someone else should fill it in.

Those wikis don't contradict and your analogy is faulty. Every piece of art must, by definition, have been created by at least one real-world individual, so whether the artist's identity is known to the uploader is meaningless - there is always a "canonically" correct answer. By contrast, it is entirely possible (and not even that uncommon) for an artist to depict a situation in which the species of one of the characters is unknown, even to the artist. Given the species and character tags are basically lore anyway, the *_request tags provide a way for others to fill in information which does exist, but only outside of the image.

Remember, furry artists are real. Furries are not.

After checking the current wikis for species_request and unknown_species, it seems like there is very little difference between the two tags. It might have made sense to keep the tags separate originally, but they both seem to be utilized in the same way (a tag used for an unidentified species, and is to be replaced with a more accurate species tag when it is possible). For this reason, I'm reversing my vote to now be a +1.

wat8548 said:
Those wikis don't contradict and your analogy is faulty.

I don't think "species is confirmed by the artist to not be named" (what species request says about unknown species) and "it isn't clear what species a character is intended to be" (what unknown species says about itself) is the same thing. It's a contradiction.

wat8548 said:
Every piece of art must, by definition, have been created by at least one real-world individual, so whether the artist's identity is known to the uploader is meaningless - there is always a "canonically" correct answer.

Irrelevant ( and technically untrue, an AI can create an image, so there could be no real-world individual who created the picture). When something is unknown, the person tagging doesn't know who (for the artist) or what (for the species) it is, not that they do know but don't have a name. unknown artist is when an artist is not known but could be known by someone (implicitly asking for that someone to tag them), and unknown character is when a character is not known but could be known by someone (implicitly asking for that someone to tag them), so it should follow that unknown species is when a species is not known but could be known by someone (implicitly asking for that someone to tag it).

wat8548 said:
Given the species and character tags are basically lore anyway

Species are not "basically lore". If I post a picture of what appears to be a lion, then no matter how much I say it's intended to be a dog, it gets tagged lion. It's not the same as a character.

wat8548 said:
the *_request tags provide a way for others to fill in information which does exist

The request tags are for creating something that doesn't/isn't known to yet exist but is wanted by the viewers, be it a translation request or an uncensor request.

Otherwise, species are TWYS. Just like ambiguous gender is used when a character's gender can't be determined at all, ambiguous species is for when a character's species can't be determined at all. But if, as an example, the Avali weren't given a name by their creator, they would still be tagged as an avian species despite the absence of a proper name.

watsit said:
I don't think "species is confirmed by the artist to not be named" (what species request says about unknown species) and "it isn't clear what species a character is intended to be" (what unknown species says about itself) is the same thing. It's a contradiction.

Hmm, I wonder what else unknown_species says about itself...?

there are a certain number of artists who draw fantasy creatures that they themselves are not sure what to call (or "generic furry characters"), particularly for one-off images or animations, without having any specific species in mind. There are also characters who are specifically designed to be one-of-a-kind or who officially have an "unknown" species (e.g. chip (sonic)).

watsit said:
Irrelevant ( and technically untrue, an AI can create an image, so there could be no real-world individual who created the picture).

Then the AI would presumably be tagged as the artist. Although if people ever actually start uploading images from This Fursona Does Not Exist, I'd argue for such images to be formally or informally banned, in much the same way as 30 different angles of the same 3D model tend to get deleted.

watsit said:
When something is unknown, the person tagging doesn't know who (for the artist) or what (for the species) it is, not that they do know but don't have a name. unknown artist is when an artist is not known but could be known by someone (implicitly asking for that someone to tag them), and unknown character is when a character is not known but could be known by someone (implicitly asking for that someone to tag them), so it should follow that unknown species is when a species is not known but could be known by someone (implicitly asking for that someone to tag it).

That's an argument for unknown_artist to be renamed to artist_request (which I would support BTW), not the opposite.

It might even be a useful distinction sometimes, in the case of ancient_furry_art.

watsit said:
Species are not "basically lore". If I post a picture of what appears to be a lion, then no matter how much I say it's intended to be a dog, it gets tagged lion. It's not the same as a character.

You must have a very warped idea of what bandicoots and hedgehogs look like then.

The tag alias species_request -> unknown_species (forum #207034) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.