Implicating black_fox → fox
Link to implication

Reason:

Evidently, there are variants of foxes that have black coats in reality, as shown if you look up "black fox". However, to try and show some info on them, the Britannica page. And i do mean the implication, not an alias, because we also have grey_fox as an implication.

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
Implicating black_fox → fox
Link to implication

Reason:

Evidently, there are variants of foxes that have black coats in reality, as shown if you look up "black fox". However, to try and show some info on them, the Britannica page. And i do mean the implication, not an alias, because we also have grey_fox as an implication.

to be honest i really dont think species that are only differentiated by the color of their furcoat or base skin/scale color should be accounted for on e621. we have *color*_fur/skin/scales/feather for such uses.

PS: Your link does not lead to anything that talks about black foxes, and nothing is on wikipedia, from what i can tell its just anouther form of common fox(red_fox) that just has a solid blak fur_coat instead of the usual 2 tone fur

For starters, interestingly enough that site is mobile only. This , though, is the wiki page that lists it as a color variant. It's a multiple name page, but still. Secondly, we do this with cats as well, implying cat with the various types and species. fox's wiki page also has a large amount of colorations and localizations. And, finally, the *color*_fur, and etc., only limit a search by so much. To put into example: fox black_fur -multicolored_tail (dipstick tail still gets a *color*_fur tag) solo (to specify that you are looking for a black fox, and not characters with black fur and a fox) is four tags, vs the equivalent black_fox as one. So, it's easier to use black_fox over the above tag combo.

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
For starters, interestingly enough that site is mobile only. This , though, is the wiki page that lists it as a color variant.

a color variant yes, not a species thou.

Secondly, we do this with cats as well, implying cat with the various types and species. fox's wiki page also has a large amount of colorations and (whatever that word is for where they grew up).

fuw listed an pretty much all differentiated by more then just furcoat color.

And, finally, the *color*_fur, and etc., only limit a search by so much. To put into example: fox black_fur -multicolored_tail (dipstick tail still gets a *color*_fur tag) solo is four tags, vs the equivalent black_fox as one. So, it's easier to use black_fox over the above tag combo.

i guess you be true on this but in the case of black foxes it does seem to be a mutation, not a actual species

A black fox is a subspecies of foxes. The common case of fox is the red fox, but the true fox has no listing, you can look at the wiki page and you'll see no mention that's just "fox". Look at the classification page to confirm this.

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
A black fox is a subspecies of foxes. The common case of fox is the red fox, but the true fox has no listing, you can look at the wiki page and you'll see no mention that's just "fox". Look at the classification page to confirm this.

Did look at the classification page, nothing listed thru look under mutations here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_fox

R'D said:
Did look at the classification page, nothing listed thru look under mutations here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_fox

Mutation is not the word, subspecies is. vulpes is the genus of fox. While black foxes are not in there, that is because they are localized to the cold climate, such as in North America and Russia. They are still a subbreed of fox, as shown in the classification page.

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
Mutation is not the word, subspecies is. vulpes is the genus of fox. While black foxss are not in there, that is because they are localized to the cold climate, such as in North America and Russia. They are still a breed of fox, as shown in the classification page.

what classification page do you speak of Siral, there is NO species of black fox listed there in any classification or list.

sorry for knit picking but you just havnt provided anything that could define black fox as a species

That's where the multiple name link comes in, they are redirected to fox. It says it there, a breed of fox with a black coat . A subbreed, a localized fox. They don't list it, but there are subbreeds that exist from fox. The closest is the cousin silver fox.

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
That's where the multiple name link comes in, they are redirected to fox. It says it there, a breed of fox with a black coat . A subbreed, a localized fox. They don't list it, but there are subbreeds that exist from fox. The closest is the cousin silver fox.

the link you gave says that black fox is a fox with black coat, not fox breed with black coat.

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
That's where the multiple name link comes in, they are redirected to fox. It says it there, a breed of fox with a black coat . A subbreed, a localized fox. They don't list it, but there are subbreeds that exist from fox. The closest is the cousin silver fox.

they do list it but again as a mutation of the fur and skin in red foxes Siral other sites also state that its simply a melanistic defect that causes skin,scales or fur to darken in animals, the other articles also linked thru google state as well that it is a mutation of the red fox. what the black fox is is basically a genetic mutation that is opposite to an albino.

Mutisija said:
the link you gave says that black fox is a fox with black coat, not fox breed with black coat.

They are saying mutation, as in there is no family of black foxes. I'm saying breed, as in there is. Subspecies is supposed to be the word, but compare it to mutation...

R'D said:
they do list it but again as a mutation of the fur and skin in red foxes Siral other sites also state that its simply a melanistic defect that causes skin,scales or fur to darken in animals, the other articles also linked thru google state as well that it is a mutation of the red fox. what the black fox is is basically a genetic mutation that is opposite to an albino.

And interestingly enough, my first most link said species, but other people can't access it.

So how about this: should we be bothering to use color tags for all the foxes, or no? I say yes, we do this for other colors, no reason to not. but technically, vulpes is a true fox, and any subspecies can be argued mutation...

Siral i honestly have no idea where you are getting breed or subspecies as pretty much every single website searched und black fox all list it as a genetic mutation or color variation of the Red Fox, the latter is under your first link, no mention of subspecies or breed.

As for Red_Foxes and Grey_Foxes they are established species that are differentiated by more then just fur color

R'D said:
Siral i honestly have no idea where you are getting breed or subspecies as pretty much every single website searched und black fox all list it as a genetic mutation or color variation of the Red Fox, the latter is under your first link, no mention of subspecies or breed.

As for Red_Foxes and Grey_Foxes they are established species that are differentiated by more then just fur color

I reiterate: should a colored fox, that is known online, be listed as just fox, along with aliasing all the non-vulpes species? This argument has gotten old, and my source can't back me up.

Actually, I think I got my coup de grace: it exists in reality.

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
Evidently, there are variants of foxes that have black coats in reality, as shown if you look up "black fox".

Even as a non-species mutant, it still exists and is distinguishable. So why not tag it?

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
I reiterate: should a colored fox, that is known online, be listed as just fox, along with aliasing all the non-vulpes species? This argument has gotten old, and my source can't back me up.

No but black_fox should be alias to red_fox.

We dont tag for albino variants of species so why would melanistic variats be.

R'D said:
No but black_fox should be alias to red_fox.

We dont tag for albino variants of species so why would melanistic variats be.

Because, you'd have to use more tags to find it. So, look for albino fox solo, vs albino_fox... Second verse, same as the first: black_fur fox -multicolored_fur solo vs black_fox

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
Because, you'd have to use more tags to find it. So, look for albino fox solo, vs albino_fox... Second verse, same as the first: black_fur fox -multicolored_fur solo vs black_fox

we dont have albino_fox thou even if rare cases of them do exist irl albino crocodiles and albino mice are well known too but we have no tag for them ether, why because they are not a species in the same way black foxes also arnt and thru the "Tag what you see" policy the *color*_fur/scales/skin/feathers tags are established for those proposes

R'D said:
we dont have albino_fox thou even if rare cases of them do exist irl albino crocodiles and albino mice are well known too but we have no tag for them ether, why because they are not a species in the same way black foxes also arnt and thru the "Tag what you see" policy the *color*_fur/scales/skin/feathers tags are established for those proposes

Ok, but there are tags with black_fox. Hence the implication. Even if there weren't, you could make them, and then imply them. We have: red fox, grey fox, and silver fox. What is there to stop a black fox tag, since they exist... even silver fox is a color variation of red fox!

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
Ok, but there are tags with black_fox. Hence the implication. Even if there weren't, you could make them, and then imply them. We have: red fox, grey fox, and silver fox. What is there to stop a black fox tag, since they exist... even silver fox is a color variation of red fox!

the former 2 are established species that again differentiate by more then just fur color while the latter two arnt species but both color variations of the red_fox species and should be aliased to red_fox. Il just leave this at that and let others decide as we both are obviously just going in circles on this at this point

Indeed.

Since black_wolf and grey_wolf - latter of which is an actual species - were aliased to wolf, this should definitely be aliased to fox. As should red_fox and grey_fox.

Due the size of this discussion, would everyone be happy if I just alias all color_fox tags to fox? These kind of tags are prone to confusion.

Hudson said:

A bit neutral on the aliasing... But, does this mean we got a huge tagging project to tag fox fur color?

My thoughts on the direction this thread is taking

Hudson said:
Due the size of this discussion, would everyone be happy if I just alias all color_fox tags to fox? These kind of tags are prone to confusion.

Hold on a second, though.

Gray foxes are a completely distinct species; it's not just based on their fur color. They have a very different fur pattern as well, their pattern being as similar to a red fox's as a leopard's is to a tiger. There's no more sense in aliasing that away than getting rid of the tags for arctic and fennec foxes.

By this logic, we should make the species tags for "tiger" and "leopard" just "big_cat." After all, you can distinguish them by the stripes or spots tag that are often forgotten and are totally useless when tagging multiple characters. The kind of tags which don't account for the difference between the tiniest patch of fur as opposed to every last visible bit of fur on a character's body.

Pls don't. It is not enough.

Fenrick said:
My thoughts on the direction this thread is taking

Hold on a second, though.

Gray foxes are a completely distinct species; it's not just based on their fur color. They have a very different fur pattern as well, their pattern being as similar to a red fox's as a leopard's is to a tiger. There's no more sense in aliasing that away than getting rid of the tags for arctic and fennec foxes.

By this logic, we should make the species tags for "tiger" and "leopard" just "big_cat." After all, you can distinguish them by the stripes or spots tag that are often forgotten and are totally useless when tagging multiple characters. The kind of tags which don't account for the difference between the tiniest patch of fur as opposed to every last visible bit of fur on a character's body.

Pls don't. It is not enough.

was initially of the same opinion but see how much it is mistaged for red foxes that simply have grey fur in place of the red fur rather then tagging by the actual characteristics of the grey fox species i could see how aliasing it would be better. tigers and cheetahs are different and dont have the same problem because they arnt named as such that could be easily misconstrued as a fur color.

one must remember to expect the random tagger/watcher to be ignorant.
What a cheetah and tiger is is common knowledge, but grey fox is simply the fandoms stereotypical red_fox with grey fur instead of red in the view of most, they dont spend the time to check the actual characteristics of a grey fox

R'D said:
was initially of the same opinion but see how much it is mistaged for red foxes that simply have grey fur in place of the red fur rather then tagging by the actual characteristics of the grey fox species i could see how aliasing it would be better. tigers and cheetahs are different and dont have the same problem because they arnt named as such that could be easily misconstrued as a fur color.

one must remember to expect the random tagger/watcher to be ignorant.
What a cheetah and tiger is is common knowledge, but grey fox is simply the fandoms stereotypical red_fox with grey fur instead of red in the view of most, they dont spend the time to check the actual characteristics of a grey fox

There are a lot of things that are going to be mistagged no matter what we do. Many users can't tell the difference between leopards and jaguars and just leave the tag at "feline" or use the wrong one. Doesn't mean we should get rid of those, just means there's some work to be done. It would be an easy project

Grey_fox is surprisingly well-tagged (at least on e926). There are a few mistags but it looks like most examples are the proper species. There's also the less common name of "tree fox" that was aliased to grey fox... maybe that could be flipped, and using these uncommon names in general would clear up some confusion. Or add more. I don't know. I think people would figure it out, though.

Fenrick said:
Grey_fox is surprisingly well-tagged (at least on e926).

Like R'D said, it's not well-tagged on e621. Not even remotely.

post #570777 post #955520 post #869090

In any case, red_fox should definitely go. Since it's the default species for foxes, in the same way as grey_wolf was for wolves.

Genjar said:
Like R'D said, it's not well-tagged on e621. Not even remotely.

post #570777 post #955520 post #869090

In any case, red_fox should definitely go. Since it's the default species for foxes, in the same way as grey_wolf was for wolves.

Well, I don't know what you're saying, but grey_fox seems to just need to be cleaned up, because only some of them are mistagged, comparing them to the Wikipedia page . But, there are a bunch of them tagged correctly: post #935063 ; post #925361 ; post #738526 ; post #866033 ; post #855764 .

Let's compare this to fox grey_fur multicolored_fur , and see the vast difference. That would be the least amount of tags and best chance comparison to grey_fox. Now, those aren't precise results, and since they are a real life species, with beings (character or otherwise) based off them, people may try to look for them. But now I'm repeating myself on ease of tagging...

So, I leave my final statement: some of the colored tags need to be cleaned, but they are a real life fox. They will be looked for, and that's why the tag exists. Calling black fox a mutation and saying it does not need its own tag restricts searching. E6 even allows custom species as acceptable tags, so why shouldn't black foxes, as an actual species/mutation, be implied to the fox species tag?

OK

There's a problem here with common 'species' terms in general:

Anyway, regarding black foxes,

They seem to be a melanistic variant of red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) but that doesn't mean they're limited to just red foxes

Melanism is somewhat common in certain animals (panthers being the most well-known), but rare in others

We could have a tag for that, maybe melanistic_[species];
albino exists.

------

• black_[body covering] (fur, skin, scales, feathers, whatever)
• generic black-bodied characters (ambiguous or otherwise unknown)
• melanism (explicitly stated)
• melanistic_[species]

The above suggestion becomes problematic however,
when you consider actual animals, vs fantasy variants, or the original character do not steal varieties

• How do you know if a character naturally has black [body covering], or is it melanism?

Deleted original implication

Aliased the following:

`black_fox` -> `fox`
`winged_fox` -> fox