So, what the heck are we supposed to do with these?
The person who came up with the things has declared that anything showing them doing anything biological can't be one, and there are people who will zealously edit anything that makes one doing them.

So... who decides species tag- the art creator, TWYS, or the species creator?

What?

You'll have to provide some links of basically everything so we can get some context here.

im pretty sure that we are going to ignore rules like that. i mean we have a whole bunch of content here that ignores the canon biology of the species and we still tag the species normally (sergals with tits, legendary pokemons with genitals, any fictional species that has been anthrofied, charrs with tits etc)

original species, do not mistag

NotMeNotYou said:
What?

A species that has no orifices, or something like that.

The creator insists that if they're drawn with those, then they're just generic fluff dragons since they don't fit the species description.

So the question is, do we tag them as dutch_angel_dragon if they're drawn/edited to have orifices?

Genjar said:
A species that has no orifices, or something like that.

So the creator is probably
-- American
-- female
-- either a feminist or a religious conservative

If I draw a sponge with a penis, we'd still tag it as a sponge.

Seems to me to be the same sort of thing.

Clawdragons said:
If I draw a sponge with a penis, we'd still tag it as a sponge.

Seems to me to be the same sort of thing.

From the wiki article, it has enough of a difference with or without an "orifice" to be tagged as one. Not all dragons are furred and have horselike features...

So yes, I do agree that if it looks like a DAG despite having an orifice, it should be tagged as one. Custom species are not exclusive to species, the DAG would still get tagged furred_dragon if they have fur, and/or any other relevant tag.

Munkelzahn said:
So the creator is probably
-- American
-- female
-- either a feminist or a religious conservative

Dude. That is not okay.

...

Regarding the actual question, Clawdragons sums it up for me: a sponge with a penis is still a sponge.

A pikachu with titties is still a pikachu.

That said, the wiki should be edited: They are furred dragons with wings and horselike features, and are prominently blind and lacking of any digestive, respiratory, or reproductive organs.

This is not descriptive. This doesn't help me tag a dutch angel dragon. Someone should describe traits that are universally identifiable between members of the species ("Most pikachu have yellowish fur, black ear tips and red cheek patches.") and some that are variable ("Some pikachu typically have squared off tailtips, while others--usually female--have a tail tip with a 3-shaped curve on the top") ... Keep in mind that artists may miss some details or get them wrong (for example, the number of fingers a pikachu has, or the precise joint placement on some animals)

SnowWolf said:
Dude. That is not okay.

Honey.

If you don't like what I've written, reply to it in a separate post.
Not as an aside to an answer to "the actual question".

Munkelzahn said:
Honey.

If you don't like what I've written, reply to it in a separate post.
Not as an aside to an answer to "the actual question".

Well, I'm getting tired of this. Stop antagonizing people or you'll be banned. This is your last and only warning, you really should know better.

SnowWolf said:
This is not descriptive. This doesn't help me tag a dutch angel dragon. Someone should describe traits that are universally identifiable between members of the species[...]

Ratte apparently has encountered those two species before and dug up this image as a sort of definite sheet on how to define and differentiate between the two species.

I'd guess keeping them separate is a good idea, but we'd definitely have to start locking those species tags on if people keep being anal about them not having genitals or digestive tracts.

Is there a real, definitive difference between these 'Dutch Angel Dragons' and generic fluffy, feathery dragons that the original creator doesn't want sexualized?

Going by that image, I think the answer has to be "no"

• You can identify things that might be classified as 'dutch angel dragon'
• You can identify things that are definitely NOT 'dutch angel dragon' (aside from criteria #3, which is not compatible with e621 in general and would have to be ignored)
• But you can't identify things that definitely ARE 'dutch angel dragon', because "other" dragons could satisfy all of those criteria without any actual effort to do so. The criteria are insufficiently unique to make that guarantee.

So, alias the tag to angel_dragon?

NotMeNotYou said:
Ratte apparently has encountered those two species before and dug up this image as a sort of definite sheet on how to define and differentiate between the two species.

The image defining them already includes an exception to one of the rules.

Furrin_Gok said:
So, alias the tag to angel_dragon?

bad idea. dutch angel dragon is well known species with specific appearance, but angel dragon tag seems to majorly just generic dragons with weathered wings. lumping them together would be terrible move from searching standpoint

siikaprinssi said:
bad idea. dutch angel dragon is well known species with specific appearance, but angel dragon tag seems to majorly just generic dragons with weathered wings. lumping them together would be terrible move from searching standpoint

The known traits are: slightly fluffier angel dragon.
That's it.

Furrin_Gok said:
The known traits are: slightly fluffier angel dragon.
That's it.

read the sheet nimmy linked earlier. also maybe actually look at the tag and you are guaranteed to see that they are recognizable as same species.

But being able to see that they are recognizable as the same species, when you look at examples that are already correctly labeled, isn't enough to enable you to correctly tag them.

You have to differentiate them RELIABLY from generic dragons (without reference to lore). The reference sheet you are citing heavily implies that RELIABLE identification isn't possible! (top left diagram)

IOW under TWYS and the specified criteria, the best we could do is a rather weak tag like maybe_dutch_angel_dragon ;)

This dutch_angel_dragon tag should most likely function like a normal "lore species" tag, meaning it gets tagged in addition to the generic term instead of replacing it. The same way we tag the World of Warcraft worgen with werewolf and sorgen so people can either find the franchise specific werewolves or all werewolves.