I've been noticing a lot of pictures (some examples below) that should have the dog tag but just instead only have have canine and I think a lot of it stems from people aren't quite sure if it's a dog or not when it comes to furry art.

After watching this video on youtube about why dogs have floppy ears, I got the idea that maybe if the following is added to the wiki

"If you are unsure the canine creature is a dog, if it has floppy ears it's probably a safe bet to add the dog tag (not including pokemon or digimon creatures) due to floppy ears being a product of domestication."

I don't know if the bits about fur color will help being this is furry art after all but it might help clean up the canine tag a bit in the long run.

post #1734139 post #1666953 post #1726567

pc-king said:
I've been noticing a lot of pictures (some examples below) that should have the dog tag but just instead only have have canine and I think a lot of it stems from people aren't quite sure if it's a dog or not when it comes to furry art.

After watching this video on youtube about why dogs have floppy ears, I got the idea that maybe if the following is added to the wiki

"If you are unsure the canine creature is a dog, if it has floppy ears it's probably a safe bet to add the dog tag (not including pokemon or digimon creatures) due to floppy ears being a product of domestication."

I don't know if the bits about fur color will help being this is furry art after all but it might help clean up the canine tag a bit in the long run.

post #1734139 post #1666953 post #1726567

Generally yes, but furry art certainly isn't always realistic

Dutchnoob said:
Generally yes, but furry art certainly isn't always realistic

I agree, but that's not really an argument here. We tag these these creatures with species names that correlates with what species it looks like even though they don't exist and aren't realistic a lot of the time, even going as far as using scientific names. Following that and with following TWYS. If a furry character looks like a canine and has floppy ears, it therefore looks like a dog, because dogs are canine's that have floppy ears due to domestication, just like we add chiropteran species tag to creatures that have the "bat nose"

The wiki already states "The dog is a domesticated form of the wolf..." but doesn't go into detail what that really means. I believe the wiki could be benefited by listing some or even just one of these traits of domestication that we could easily see in pictures

My only gripe with this idea is the fact that not all breeds of dog have floppy ears.

MissChu said:
My only gripe with this idea is the fact that not all breeds of dog have floppy ears.

Well..

not all dogs have floppy ears, but only dogs have floppy ears.

It's like having apples and oranges. they're both roundish. They're both green at one point in their life. However, only apples become red, so if it's red, it's an apple.

That doesn't help you if you have a green apple, or a yellow apple, but all of the round red apple-or-orange fruits are apples.

All of the floppy eared canines are dogs. But not all canines have floppy ears.

actually its not impossible for wolves to have floppy ears, and its definitely very possible for people to draw something that is obviously a realistic and easily recognizable wolf, but give them also floppy ears

Ruikuli said:
actually its not impossible for wolves to have floppy ears, and its definitely very possible for people to draw something that is obviously a realistic and easily recognizable wolf, but give them also floppy ears

while possible those don't really look like you typical dog ears that lay almost flat against the head. I'm fairly certain those will be edge cases and should just follow TWYS, like we do with other picture of mix-matched species parts on a character such as this post #1356472.

We also add descriptive traits to other species in their wikis as well. Example giraffe is described having a "extremely long neck and legs" but we still tag giraffes even when they have short necks. I know that's a bit extreme example due to it generally easier to see a giraffe from other species vs dog and wolves, but I don't see how adding it to the wiki we'll get in influx of people tagging wolves as dogs by adding some general known traits of dogs to the wiki.

I'm not suggesting anything crazy like having the tag canine_floppy_ears auto imply dog, but there is a lot of pictures that should be including the dog tag and it's a bit unrealistic for the average person to have memorized 100s of dog breads and then trying to apply the knowledge to furry art, at least that's how I interpret the dog wiki in it's current form with the phrase
"The dog tag should be used in conjunction with a breed of dog, or as a standalone if no recognizable breed can be distinguished."
I know in the past I've seen a dog in a picture but didn't know the breed, but knew it was a breed of some kind, but choose not to add the dog tag for not knowing it, and I know I can't be the only one.

Having a more of a definition of some generic traits or characteristics of dogs to wiki could only help and it would be more consistent with other species' wikis

I've just scanned all the posts above, but I don't see any mention of lop-eared rabbits.

The idea works for canines, but I wouldn't make any tagging implications based on it.

CCoyote said:
I've just scanned all the posts above, but I don't see any mention of lop-eared rabbits.

The idea works for canines, but I wouldn't make any tagging implications based on it.

I don't beleive anyone was saying that it SHOULD have any implications. :)

just a wiki rule of thumb.

SnowWolf said:
I don't beleive anyone was saying that it SHOULD have any implications. :)

just a wiki rule of thumb.

Okay, got it. :) Thanks!