While I was previously content with the pegasus tag being aliased to pterippus, reversing this decision seems to go against what e621's tagging rules would suggest.

While the mythical horse's name is used to refer to pterippi as a whole these days, this modern usage does not erase the historically recorded name for the species nor the fact that using pegasus to refer to pterippi is only colloquial in nature.

This informal and casual use of pegasus as a species name is in complete opposition to the usually very accurate method of species tagging that I see on this site, and it stands to reason that if one were to go out of their way to make tagging as accurate as possible for existing species then we should do the same with mythological species, at least as much as research will allow.
Furthermore, the use of pterippus as the official tag is an opportunity to educate those who do not know of the term, once again this would be in line with what e621 is supposed to stand for - to familiarise people with terms and species they may not be familiar with and by using a casual and informal term e621 is going against that, seemingly just for simplicity's sake. These obscure terms should not have to be, pardon my language, dumbed down just because modern usage has clouded them.

I know the debate between these terms is a touchy one, but I'd expect e621 to prioritise accuracy here like it does in the rest of its tagging program.

The most popular use of the term pegasus is MLP, and it is the official species name in that series.

pegasus -my_little_pony 14 pages
pegasus my_little_pony 653 pages

We have two names for the same / similar species, and one has 46 times as many results. What are the chances someone is specifically looking for the mythical creature and not its MLP clone?

I didn't really address your points.

+1 for Bird + Hybrid + Horse

proceleon said:
Furthermore, the use of pterippus as the official tag is an opportunity to educate those who do not know of the term, once again this would be in line with what e621 is supposed to stand for - to familiarise people with terms and species they may not be familiar with and by using a casual and informal term e621 is going against that, seemingly just for simplicity's sake. These obscure terms should not have to be, pardon my language, dumbed down just because modern usage has clouded them.

E621 tries to balance accuracy and discoverability AFAICS, not just to prioritize accuracy.
That's why I've objected to pterrippus as bad user interface on multiple occasions -- exactly because it's sufficiently obscure, and being as obvious as reasonably possible is important for getting things tagged well. I could be wrong about this, but I'd say that the relatively recent andromorph and gynomorph, which also have greek roots, are far more obvious than pterrippus, because English has reasonably well known words which use these roots (androgynous, gynecologist, morphing, etc, just off the top of my head.)

My position is pretty much the opposite of yours -- that e621 is first pragmatically trying to achieve searchability (the main virtue that it is praised for IME), and only after that aiming for technical accuracy, thus pterrippus's obscurity is not in line with e621's priorities as I understand them.

savageorange said:
E621 tries to balance accuracy and discoverability AFAICS, not just to prioritize accuracy.
That's why I've objected to pterrippus as bad user interface on multiple occasions -- exactly because it's sufficiently obscure, and being as obvious as reasonably possible is important for getting things tagged well. I could be wrong about this, but I'd say that the relatively recent andromorph and gynomorph, which also have greek roots, are far more obvious than pterrippus, because English has reasonably well known words which use these roots (androgynous, gynecologist, morphing, etc, just off the top of my head.)

My position is pretty much the opposite of yours -- that e621 is first pragmatically trying to achieve searchability (the main virtue that it is praised for IME), and only after that aiming for technical accuracy, thus pterrippus's obscurity is not in line with e621's priorities as I understand them.

You're certainly correct regarding general tags, but I believe species tags are treated differently where accuracy takes a greater priority.

An example of this is deer being aliased to cervid. The average person would have no idea what a "cervid" is, but they'd recognise "deer" in a second. However, "deer" isn't an actual species name, it's just a popular term used to refer to various species of cervids. Since "deer" has no basis in scientific taxonomy, it wouldn't be appropriate to use it over the more accurate "cervid".

Then again, the topic at hand does concern fictional species. I'm not sure if the prioritisation of accuracy applies to all species tags, or only those species that actually exist in real life.

jakxxx3 said:
You're certainly correct regarding general tags, but I believe species tags are treated differently where accuracy takes a greater priority.

An example of this is deer being aliased to cervid. The average person would have no idea what a "cervid" is, but they'd recognise "deer" in a second. However, "deer" isn't an actual species name, it's just a popular term used to refer to various species of cervids. Since "deer" has no basis in scientific taxonomy, it wouldn't be appropriate to use it over the more accurate "cervid".

Then again, the topic at hand does concern fictional species. I'm not sure if the prioritisation of accuracy applies to all species tags, or only those species that actually exist in real life.

Actually Deer is a species name. Most species in the Cervidae family have deer in their official species name, and the ones that don't (such as elk) are considered a type of deer anyways. Deer is as official of a species name as fox, or wolf is in the Canidae family. I don't like the change personally, but I think it was done to preserve the taxonomical terms, and that elk are not typically referred to as deer.

• cervid
• cervine
• elk

This seems like a strange thing to do.

• deer
• cervine
• elk

thevileone said:
The most popular use of the term pegasus is MLP, and it is the official species name in that series.

pegasus -my_little_pony 14 pages
pegasus my_little_pony 653 pages

We have two names for the same / similar species, and one has 46 times as many results. What are the chances someone is specifically looking for the mythical creature and not its MLP clone?

I didn't really address your points.

You could make that argument for 'Alicorn', however that still wouldn't change the fact that Alicorn refers to the horn of a unicorn regardless of what popular culture has used the term for. I could also make the counter-argument that there are pterippi in media that do not go by the Pegasus name. What if someone is looking for a pterippus that isn't a variation on Pegasus? The pterippi from Fantasia, for example.
If 'pegasus' is simply aliased to 'pterippus' then people looking for MLP will still find what they're looking for, but they'll also be educated. There's no downside to use the 'pterippus' as the tag.
Even if the tag description is true and Rich's Pegopedia was the origin of the term, it's still the first instance of actually naming the species, which should be taken with the same weight any other species name.

We don't tag 'alicorn' because it's inaccurate. We use 'winged_unicorn'.
We don't tag 'deer' because it's inaccurate. We use 'cervid'.
We don't tag 'bat' because it's inaccurate. We use 'chiropteran'.
We shouldn't tag 'pegasus' because it's inaccurate. We should use 'pterippus'.

You make good points about this subject. If pterippus wasn't such an unwieldy name to call it, I would find it easier to agree with you. Ever since it was aliased to that, it was a turn off to me. It bothered me each time I saw it in the species list. I believe that pegasus is a much easier term to remember and use compared to that term which I was concerned that I was spelling it correctly whenever I tried to use it.

As for your species examples, there is a reason why we are using the family name for certain species and others we don't. It's because there are some species that are referred to as deer across multiple subfamilies within Cervidae and there are species that aren't commonly referred to as deer within that same family (elk). Since deer cannot be pigeon-holed into a single grouping, the term "deer" ends up associated with the broadest group that encompasses all of the deer, which includes some species that are technically deer, but they aren't typically called deer. To resolve this issue, the term "deer" gets aliased to the family name instead.

But yes, that validates your assertion that "deer" is an inaccurate term, but technically it is how certain species of deer are named that is inaccurate and the alias reflects that inaccuracy.

thevileone said:
You make good points about this subject. If pterippus wasn't such an unwieldy name to call it, I would find it easier to agree with you. Ever since it was aliased to that, it was a turn off to me. It bothered me each time I saw it in the species list. I believe that pegasus is a much easier term to remember and use compared to that term which I was concerned that I was spelling it correctly whenever I tried to use it.

As for your species examples, there is a reason why we are using the family name for certain species and others we don't. It's because there are some species that are referred to as deer across multiple subfamilies within Cervidae and there are species that aren't commonly referred to as deer within that same family (elk). Since deer cannot be pigeon-holed into a single grouping, the term "deer" ends up associated with the broadest group that encompasses all of the deer, which includes some species that are technically deer, but they aren't typically called deer. To resolve this issue, the term "deer" gets aliased to the family name instead.

But yes, that validates your assertion that "deer" is an inaccurate term, but technically it is how certain species of deer are named that is inaccurate and the alias reflects that inaccuracy.

Unwieldy? The entire point of an alias is for ease of browsing, so you wouldn't have to remember or even use Pterippus because you'd get the same results even if you searched for the Pegasus tag; that's what an alias does.

This whole subject isn't about ease of use because using either tag literally doesn't change the result; it's merely about accuracy and education within the tagging system, which I'm arguing is what the tags are aiming for.
My point is that using Pegasus as the default tag is not only inaccurate, but has no educational value, whereas Pterippus provides both accuracy and a learning experience.

proceleon said:
We shouldn't tag 'pegasus' because it's inaccurate. We should use 'pterippus'.

Oh come on. A year ago I made a thread (topic #23891) where I explained that "pretippus" is a modern neologism, the Greeks had no concept of such a species (Pegasus was a single winged horse) and the one Roman writer who described winged horses as real animals used "pegasi" to call them. On top of that, I'm reasonably sure "pterippus" is grammatically incorrect in the Greek language, judging from the usage of "pteroippos", which means a human riding a winged horse. All the sources are in the thread I linked.

Rich's Pegopedia didn't invent winged horses; it has no authority over their naming. What is it that makes it correct or proper? Does it mean that Oxford Dictionary, which lists "pegasus" as a common noun, is wrong and should be revised? Can you find any dictionary that recognizes "pterippus"?

Pegasus is the proper name. Fundamentally the argument here is wrong.
Either way by the sites "spirit" the tag should just be "equine" "wings" but if pokemon get names so do WingHorses so Pegasus stays because it does its job and has done so for literally millenia.

frozenpineapple said:
Oh come on. A year ago I made a thread (topic #23891) where I explained that "pretippus" is a modern neologism, the Greeks had no concept of such a species (Pegasus was a single winged horse) and the one Roman writer who described winged horses as real animals used "pegasi" to call them. On top of that, I'm reasonably sure "pterippus" is grammatically incorrect in the Greek language, judging from the usage of "pteroippos", which means a human riding a winged horse. All the sources are in the thread I linked.

Rich's Pegopedia didn't invent winged horses; it has no authority over their naming. What is it that makes it correct or proper? Does it mean that Oxford Dictionary, which lists "pegasus" as a common noun, is wrong and should be revised? Can you find any dictionary that recognizes "pterippus"?

First of all, if you've actually read my initial comment, you'll know I'm well aware that the original Greek incarnation was an individual.
Secondly, the other members in that thread bring up the same points we've covered here, such as Pegasus not being the only winged horse of his time. If we take the Islamic Haizum, the Chinese Qianlima or even Aragorn from the Avengers comics, it's actually more confusing calling them all pegasi because, well... they're not Pegasus. They are winged horses. They are Pterippi. Using Pegasus for all of them simply doesn't cover it.
Heck, even the admin themselves explains that the term is meant to differentiate between the individual and the species.

And finally, that's not how the Oxford Dictionary works. The Dictionary only adds words if they're deemed to be in common usage, hence the addition of words like 'selfie' as they caught on. It doesn't pay attention to the merit or history of said words at all, merely explaining what they're being used to refer to, the takeaway from that isn't that Pterippus is wrong, it's that Pterippus isn't in common usage, which is entirely correct.

proceleon said:

It doesn't pay attention to the merit or history of said words at all

Neither are you. I said already that history favors "pegasus". I'll ask again: can you find any dictionary (curated, not something you can edit yourself) that recognizes "pterippus" to validate your claim that it's the correct name? Even "winged horse" is better, as you admit yourself by using it. At least it doesn't raise eyebrows and doesn't need to be explained.

Haizum has zero artwork. The only difference between him and the generic pegasus is that he's carrying Archangel Gabriel on his back. Qianlima don't have wings and in the original story one of them was confused for a regular horse. Also zero artwork. The mythical Pegasus, son of Medusa, has zero artwork. The only way to differentiate between him and a generic winged horse is if he's carrying Bellerophon on his back or Zeus's lighting bolts. You're creating a problem that doesn't exist. And the species tags for cerberus, minotaur or hydra, all single mythological monsters, don't seem to have a problem either. Why single out pegasus?

The pegasus species tag has historical backing, is popular and fits among other tags in the wiki. It's the best choice.

What person is likely to come to this web site thinking, "I'd like to see art of a horse with wings. Let me run a search for pterippus"?

Think about your audience; this change makes no sense.

I agree with FP and CC. No one I know of would recognize pterippus; I've never even seen that term before this thread. If we were to change the pegasus tag at all, the most logical course would simply be winged_horse. As FP said: it's simple and easily understood by everyone.

ccoyote said:
What person is likely to come to this web site thinking, "I'd like to see art of a horse with wings. Let me run a search for pterippus"?

Think about your audience; this change makes no sense.

To play devil's advocate, even the furriest and nerdiest of furries would probably search for 'bat' without ever thinking of chiropteran

edit: I still thick 'pterippus' is a bad tag name for other reasons, just complexity might not be the best argument here

ccoyote said:
What person is likely to come to this web site thinking, "I'd like to see art of a horse with wings. Let me run a search for pterippus"?

Luckily this site employs tag aliases, so you could still search pegasus, even if the tag is technically pterippus or winged_horse or whatever else. Why not deer? Or bat? Or cow? Or whale? That's what people will expect to use, but the site uses more accurate terminology for them and lets aliases take care of the rest.

My vote: 👎

for both readability of the tag list and accuracy, if it's a word made up by a third party completely disconnected with the invention of the fictional species/character and it's not recognized by most users or external sources than it probably shouldn't be used.

when was this reversed??

ccoyote said:
What person is likely to come to this web site thinking, "I'd like to see art of a horse with wings. Let me run a search for pterippus"?

Think about your audience; this change makes no sense.

It's not about the audience, it's about this website's tagging system clearly valuing accuracy above all else, hence having 'chiropteran' when most people would simply type 'bat' and get the same result.
The entire point is that 'pegasus' is not as accurate a term as 'pterippus' is, thus it goes against the tagging system's usual operations. THAT'S the point here; not ease of use, not familiarity, but accuracy.
Those altering tags MUST view the situation objectively. No use getting angry because you don't know a word.

As a side note, by even debating this you've now learned what a pterippus is, so you're now one less person who'd be confused by the change.

versperus said:
when was this reversed??

I imagine it was early this year, but IIRC the pterippus tag was being used for about a year(?) before with no issue.

frozenpineapple said:
Neither are you. I said already that history favors "pegasus". I'll ask again: can you find any dictionary (curated, not something you can edit yourself) that recognizes "pterippus" to validate your claim that it's the correct name? Even "winged horse" is better, as you admit yourself by using it. At least it doesn't raise eyebrows and doesn't need to be explained.

Haizum has zero artwork. The only difference between him and the generic pegasus is that he's carrying Archangel Gabriel on his back. Qianlima don't have wings and in the original story one of them was confused for a regular horse. Also zero artwork. The mythical Pegasus, son of Medusa, has zero artwork. The only way to differentiate between him and a generic winged horse is if he's carrying Bellerophon on his back or Zeus's lighting bolts. You're creating a problem that doesn't exist. And the species tags for cerberus, minotaur or hydra, all single mythological monsters, don't seem to have a problem either. Why single out pegasus?

The pegasus species tag has historical backing, is popular and fits among other tags in the wiki. It's the best choice.

Ignoring for the moment that you completely glazed over my explanation of WHY dictionaries don't include Pterippus and that you seem to be under the impression that having no artwork means taggers shouldn't put any effort into existing tags, which taggers do regardless and I commend them for that, allow me to tackle the other mythical elephants in the room.

The Minotaur in the famous myth was an individual named Asterion, this is true, however since the individual and species name both exist, very akin to Pegasus and Pterippus in that regard, it isn't a stretch to dub Minotaur as the species name since the specific Minotaur in the story has a name of his own.

The Hydra is in a similar situation for one simple reason - it is the LERNAEAN Hydra, also known as the Hydra of Lerna. Lerna being a location means that the name 'Lernaean Hydra' carries a similar structure to 'Nemean lion' or 'Cretan Bull' i.e. it is a location followed by the name of the species, openly carrying the connotation of Hydra being a valid species name. Of course, this is ignoring that 'Hydra' just means 'water snake' but that's a different conversation.

Cerberus is the only case you may have a point in. Even in my quite extensive research, I couldn't find one source that lists Cerberus as anything other than a 'three-headed dog', which would suggest to me that a species name simply doesn't exist, at least not one I know of. Couple this with his brother, Orthrus and the two seem to be truly unique creatures, in which case using 'Cerberus' and 'Orthrus' as placeholder names until a more accurate one is found/made is acceptable, or simply classifying them as subspecies of 'Hellhound' which would also be acceptable.

Good riddance. Using it didn't make much sense in the first place.
Pegopedia is hardly a valid authority for species naming, and 'pterippus' is just neologism for 'winged horse'. It's broader category than pegasi, and 'pterippus' should logically include creatures such as thestral from Harry Potter. Though I could potentially agree to implicating pegasus to pterippus (along with other types of winged equines).

And I'd consider the winged_horse suggestion, except pegasi are supposed to be separate from horses and thestral. And calling them *_HORSE would cause users to mistag them more. winged_equine? Maybe..

genjar said:
Good riddance. Using it didn't make much sense in the first place.
Pegopedia is hardly a valid authority for species naming, and 'pterippus' is just neologism for 'winged horse'. It's broader category than pegasi, and 'pterippus' should logically include creatures such as thestral from Harry Potter. Though I could potentially agree to implicating pegasus to pterippus (along with other types of winged equines).

And I'd consider the winged_horse suggestion, except pegasi are supposed to be separate from horses and thestral. And calling them *_HORSE would cause users to mistag them more. winged_equine? Maybe..

Thestrals are already their own thing by definition, but my question is if using either 'pegasus' or 'pterippus' yields the same result AND the tagging system already leans into finding and using obscure terms for the sake of separation and education (see 'chiropteran' and 'proboscidean') is it not against the tagging philosophy to use a common term as opposed to one that achieves both separation and education?

Side note: The definition of neologism is "A relatively recent or isolated term, word, or phrase that may be in the process of entering common use, but that has not yet been fully accepted into mainstream language."

IN THE PROCESS OF ENTERING COMMON USE! Meaning it's a perfectly valid term!

proceleon said:
IN THE PROCESS OF ENTERING COMMON USE! Meaning it's a perfectly valid term!

Citation needed on the "entering common use" bit in regards to pterripus.
Just because you claim that it's a valid term does not make it so.

Why are you so emotionally invested in this, anyways?

proceleon said:
AND the tagging system already leans into finding and using obscure terms for the sake of separation and education (see 'chiropteran' and 'proboscidean')

Unless I've missed something glancing through the species tags, that only holds true for real animal species; those words aren't really obscure, they're the accepted terms for the species in scientific identification and just not the layman's terms.

proceleon said:
IN THE PROCESS OF ENTERING COMMON USE! Meaning it's a perfectly valid term!

I wouldn't say it's entering common use. Unless I search for that term specifically, I do not see it come up when searching winged horse or pegasus. I do see other terms such as flying horse, sky horse, and pegasoid. That last one has about a 50/50 usage between "like or pertaining to Pegasus" and "like or pertaining to Pegasidae" (a sea moth family named for Pegasus). Pteropus came up in the results of searching for pterippus, which is a genus of bats.

genjar said:
And I'd consider the winged_horse suggestion, except pegasi are supposed to be separate from horses and thestral. And calling them *_HORSE would cause users to mistag them more. winged_equine? Maybe..

To me winged_equine sounds like a family tag for various species of winged horses, sort of like how dragon is to furred_dragon and others. TBH, MLP aside, it can be hard to tell if any feather-winged horse is supposed to be based on Pegasus or based off of winged horses from other sources (chances are pretty high for Pegasus though). There is still the fact, as TheVileOne pointed out way back, that pegasus is the canon name for the species as far as MLP goes, and it's pretty generally accepted outside of it as well.

The absurdity of this entire argument is giving me a headache. Just no.

bitwolfy said:
Citation needed on the "entering common use" bit in regards to pterripus.
Just because you claim that it's a valid term does not make it so.

Why are you so emotionally invested in this, anyways?

I cannot help but feel like this entire thread is a thinly veiled jab at other site changes with the tags.

But lets assume this is in hearnest for a moment and ask the real question.

@op
What is there to be gained from using your newly suggested tag. What does it bring to the table the current one doesnt.

Does the current tag cause harm?
Is the current tag functionally worse or lesser?
Is the new tag functionally superior?
Does the new tag help anyone?

If the answer to all of these is no. Which is the case.

I vote no on this unless proven otherwise.

Winged Horse or some variation of that works. But is wholly unnecessary.

riverinadryland said:
To me winged_equine sounds like a family tag for various species of winged horses, sort of like how dragon is to furred_dragon and others.

Which is exactly what I was talking about in the previous paragraph: implicating pegasus to a broader tag. In other words, implicating pegasus, thestral, etc to winged_equine. Which could also be used for other winged equines that don't quite fit in pegasus or other subtags (such as post #1693512).

demesejha said:
I cannot help but feel like this entire thread is a thinly veiled jab at other site changes with the tags.

But lets assume this is in hearnest for a moment and ask the real question.

@op
What is there to be gained from using your newly suggested tag. What does it bring to the table the current one doesnt.

Does the current tag cause harm?
Is the current tag functionally worse or lesser?
Is the new tag functionally superior?
Does the new tag help anyone?

If the answer to all of these is no. Which is the case.

I vote no on this unless proven otherwise.

Winged Horse or some variation of that works. But is wholly unnecessary.

I have said countless times that pterippus is not only more accurate, as it takes into account that other winged horses besides the Greek Pegasus do exist, but also exposes everyone to new vocabulary, and thus educates people.
And to answer your rather condescending questions...

Does the current tag cause harm? Not inherently, no.
Is the current tag functionally worse or lesser? Considering it's a colloquialism, yes.
Is the new tag functionally superior? Bringing education and accuracy to the table means yes.
Does the new tag help anyone? Yes! It will educate people!

bitwolfy said:
Why are you so emotionally invested in this, anyways?

It's funny you think emotions come into this when the entire debate is that 'Pegasus' goes against the values of the tagging system itself, something that is purely objective in nature.
The tagging system is not built to care about what people are used to using, prefer using or are familiar with, it's built to be as objectively accurate as humanly possible.
Forgive my saying so, but I'd argue the only way you could think Pegasus is a better term is because you are yourself invested in the terminology you're used to, clinging to the familiar and refusing to learn a new word, which would be ironic, considering that in merely partaking in this conversation, you've learned the term Pterippus whether you wanted to or not, and thus the purpose of the tagging system has been fulfilled.

proceleon said:
It's funny you think emotions come into this when the entire debate is that 'Pegasus' goes against the values of the tagging system itself, something that is purely objective in nature.

I don't "think" that emotions come into this. That is simply a fact.
You are very passionate about this topic, that much is undeniable. I just want to know why this is so important to you.

proceleon said:
The tagging system is not built to care about what people are used to using, prefer using or are familiar with, it's built to be as objectively accurate as humanly possible.

You are wrong.
The tagging system was made to let people quickly and accurately find exactly the kind of content they were looking for. It's not some sort of scientific process, merely a way for people to find better porn. I am not sure why people keep insisting otherwise.

Why don't you do this properly, the way it's supposed to work?
Create an alias request, pegasus -> pterippus. Let the community decide.
Would at least be more productive than posting increasingly unhinged rants.

bitwolfy said:
I don't "think" that emotions come into this. That is simply a fact.
You are very passionate about this topic, that much is undeniable. I just want to know why this is so important to you.

You are wrong.
The tagging system was made to let people quickly and accurately find exactly the kind of content they were looking for. It's not some sort of scientific process, merely a way for people to find better porn. I am not sure why people keep insisting otherwise.

Why don't you do this properly, the way it's supposed to work?
Create an alias request, pegasus -> pterippus. Let the community decide.
Would at least be more productive than posting increasingly unhinged rants.

The short version of it is that I've always known Pegasus was a wrong usage, but to understand that you only have to ask yourself one simple question: "If this winged horse's name is Pegasus, what do we call his species?" I assume most people know Pegasus was the only one of his kind, but what excuse is that to use his name for every winged horse? The problem for the longest time there wasn't a definitive answer, which is why people started using 'pegasi', because there was no better term, but we have a clear term now in Pterippus. It's comparable to dropping the name 'Cameleopard' when people realised "Hey, this is a Giraffe." My frustration is that we're so entrenched in the old term Pegasus that we can't adapt to the new term that has come into use specifically for the purpose of defining the species. "Pegasus was a Pterippus." Makes sense. "Pegasus was a Pegasus." Doesn't. (Is the word I'm looking for 'tautology'?)

True, I will defend the use of Pterippus, as its benefits far outway those of Pegasus, but the thing Pegasus has going for it is that people recognise it, which would inherently cause a bias if any kind of vote were put in place, which is also why a vote simply will not work, because the tag was changed before and the admins were flamed into changing it back. I can only describe this as being a cowardly move, if you'll forgive my harshness.
Besides, as I've said before, searching Pegasus would still get you Pegasus results if the aliases were switched, so where's the harm in introducing people to a new word?

proceleon said:
The short version of it is that I've always known Pegasus was a wrong usage, but to understand that you only have to ask yourself one simple question: "If this winged horse's name is Pegasus, what do we call his species?" I assume most people know Pegasus was the only one of his kind, but what excuse is that to use his name for every winged horse?

"Pegasus" is not an incorrect term.
Most of the posts tagged pegasus on e621 are related to the species from MLP.
Feel free to check for yourself:

pegasus -my_little_pony yields ~1,100 results
pegasus my_little_pony yields ~50,800 results

That's right, the MLP-relevant usage is almost 50 times as common as all others combined.
The species in the show is literally called "pegasus" in-universe, not "pterippus". And yet you are arguing that the name should be changed, even though it goes against common usage.

proceleon said:
True, I will defend the use of Pterippus, as its benefits far outway those of Pegasus, but the thing Pegasus has going for it is that people recognise it, which would inherently cause a bias if any kind of vote were put in place, which is also why a vote simply will not work, because the tag was changed before and the admins were flamed into changing it back. I can only describe this as being a cowardly move, if you'll forgive my harshness.

So, you are aware that you are not only arguing for a change that goes against common usage, but the one that goes against the community's opinion as well.
I'm not sure what the purpose of this topic is then.

bitwolfy said:
This is bullshit.
The most common usage of the term pegasus on e621 is a species from MLP.
Feel free to check for yourself:

pegasus -my_little_pony ~1,100 results
pegasus my_little_pony ~50,800 results

That's right, the MLP-relevant usage is almost 50 times as common as all others combined.
The species in the show is literally called "pegasus", not "pterippus". And yet you are arguing that the name should be changed, even though it goes against common usage.

So, you are aware that you are not only arguing for a change that goes against common usage, but the one that goes against the community's opinion as well.

MLP hasn't helped matters, it's just pushed for a term that's already misused, perpetuating the cycle. They corrupted the use of 'alicorn' as well, although thankfully, the alchemical definition was well-known enough to overrule popular culture, as should be the case for any tag.

And yes, I'm aware that people here will not accept a term they don't know, but familiarising people with the Pterippus term is EXACTLY what changing the tag would achieve! Do you see the logic here? Changing the tag makes people more familiar with Pterippus, they start looking into what it means and then some of them may begin using Pterippus in their own vocabulary, further spreading awareness. That's how change is made.

Resistance because of familiarity will only perpetuate what is already misused, further contributing to the idea that Pegasus should stay.

It only takes one change to the system to change people's minds. We tip in Pterippus' favour here, the term stands a better chance of entering common use, i.e. the very thing you're currently using to argue against it.
Why would you be against this? Public opinion CAN be swayed if we accept the evolving language.

proceleon said: ...

What kind of weird circular logic is this.

You want to change the tag from a commonly-known and widely-used "pegasus" to a very obscure "pterippus", so that the latter would become more commonly-used.
You are saying that I should accept the evolving language, but it seems like you should take your own advise and stop trying to assert your opinions as facts. Language does not change just because you personally want it to, unless the majority of people agree with you. And they clearly don't.

bitwolfy said:
What kind of weird circular logic is this.

You want to change the tag from a commonly-known and widely-used "pegasus" to a very obscure "pterippus", so that the latter would become more commonly-used.
You are saying that I should accept the evolving language, but it seems like you should take your own advise and stop trying to assert your opinions as facts. Language does not change just because you personally want it to, unless the majority of people agree with you. And they clearly don't.

They don't agree because they don't know the term. THAT'S the entire problem.
Are you going to deny that "Pegasus was a pegasus" is a tautology and should be replaced with a more suitable term?

proceleon said:
Are you going to deny that "Pegasus was a pegasus" is a tautology and should be replaced with a more suitable term?

Yes.

The term "pegasus" has evolved past the point where it meant a singular creature, and became synonymous with "winged equine". That happens a lot in languages, much like the term "kleenex" stopped meaning a specific brand and just became another word for "tissues". And that is perfectly fine.

proceleon said:
Are you going to deny that "Pegasus was a pegasus" is a tautology and should be replaced with a more suitable term?

It's not actually a tautology, and claiming it is one is actually an example of equivocation. Pegasus (meaning the name of the character) is a pegasus (meaning a winged horse). The two terms are not referring to the same thing, thus, not tautological. You could, if you so chose, name something besides a winged horse "Pegasus" to make this more clear. For instance, you could say "Pegasus (Northrop Grumman Pegasus rocket) is not a pegasus (winged horse)" and this would be correct - a missile and a winged horse are not the same thing.

bitwolfy said:
Yes.

The term "pegasus" has evolved past the point where it meant a singular creature, and became synonymous with "winged equine". That happens a lot in languages, much like the term "kleenex" stopped meaning a specific brand and just became another word for "tissues". And that is perfectly fine.

There are better examples you could've used there, but they would've all had the same fault in logic.
"Kleenex" are a brand, "tissues" are the product.
"Hoover" is a brand, "vacuum cleaner" is a product.
Your best example would be "Escalator" which was a trademark, but became so widely used the trademark was lost and the term is now public domain. "inclined elevator" would've been the product, or at least one name for it.
But even with those examples, the common name and the true name are different, such is the case here. This mistake was corrected once before, and it should be corrected again.

clawdragons said:
It's not actually a tautology, and claiming it is one is actually an example of equivocation. Pegasus (meaning the name of the character) is a pegasus (meaning a winged horse). The two terms are not referring to the same thing, thus, not tautological. You could, if you so chose, name something besides a winged horse "Pegasus" to make this more clear. For instance, you could say "Pegasus (Northrop Grumman Pegasus rocket) is not a pegasus (winged horse)" and this would be correct - a missile and a winged horse are not the same thing.

That's still ignoring the fact that Pterippus as a term exists and does exclusively refer to the species. There is no confusion as to what one is referring to, unlike in the "is a pegasus" example. The mere fact you had to put those definitions in brackets is a symptom of the problem I'm trying to fix here!

proceleon said: ...

What exactly is the "fault in logic" here? That the "common name" and "true name" are different? Yes, that's kind of the point.
Besides, the true name for what is commonly known as a pegasus is by no means "pterippus". It is "winged horse".

You keep asserting, over and over again, that "pegasus" is wrong, and "pterippus" is the correct term.
Just because you say something does not make it true. You do not get to police the language however you see fit.

Feel free to keep using that term in your personal vocabulary, as is your right.
But you do not get to enforce your personal preferences on a community that disagrees with you.

proceleon said:
That's still ignoring the fact that Pterippus as a term exists and does exclusively refer to the species. There is no confusion as to what one is referring to, unlike in the "is a pegasus" example. The mere fact you had to put those definitions in brackets is a symptom of the problem I'm trying to fix here!

I was explaining to you that describing the relationship between Pegasus and pegasus as a tautology was an equivocation. Your, or my, opinions on tagging are irrelevant to that fact. Personally, I think that e621 has gone in a completely stupid direction with tagging in recent years, to the extent that it has gotten so bad that I've given up on bothering. I think changing the pegasus species tag to pterippus would be a bad decision, but it would fit perfectly in among the sea of other bad decisions that have been made recently. My interest in responding to this topic was to correct an error that you made. As far as tags go, I'm not all that interested in discussing the issue for the same reason that, were I a doctor, I wouldn't bother proscribing antibiotics to a person who just spent several hours submerged in lava.

bitwolfy said:
What exactly is the "fault in logic" here? That the "common name" and "true name" are different? Yes, that's kind of the point.
Besides, the true name for what is commonly known as a pegasus is by no means "pterippus". It is "winged horse".

You keep asserting, over and over again, that "pegasus" is wrong, and "pterippus" is the correct term.
It is not so. You do not get to police the language however you see fit.

Feel free to keep using that term in your personal vocabulary, as is your right.
But you do not get to enforce your personal preferences on a community that disagrees with you.

You just openly admitted Pegasus was a wrong term. Even if "winged horse" is used instead, it would at the very least be a neutral term both sides could agree on.
And it isn't just me. Heck, I wouldn't even know the term if Pterippus: The Awakening by Kristl Thompson didn't use it. Even the admins themselves opted to change the tag over a year ago as cited here (topic #23891) so there's clearly an established basis for using the term officially.

In fact, I would very much like to hear an admin's reasoning for reinstating this mistake. The invitation is open.

proceleon said: You just openly admitted Pegasus was a wrong term.

What the hell are you smoking?..
If I said that "a dragon is a winged lizard", would you go "Haha! You just openly admitted that dragon is a wrong term"?

proceleon said:
Heck, I wouldn't even know the term if Pterippus: The Awakening by Kristl Thompson didn't use it.

You just openly admitted that the term "pterippus" is obscure.

You know what? I am done arguing with the brick wall.
Feel free to keep pushing for the change that nobody (except for like three people) wants.

bitwolfy said:
What the hell are you smoking?..
If I said that "a dragon is a winged lizard", would you go "Haha! You just openly admitted that dragon is a wrong term"?

Feel free to keep pushing for the change that nobody (except for like three people) wants. I am done arguing with the brick wall.

You said "the true name for what is commonly known as a pegasus is by no means "pterippus". It is "winged horse", So you were saying that even though Pegasus is common, "winged horse" would be a more true name for them, basically going against the assertion that Pegasus should be used.

bitwolfy said:
You just openly admitted that the term "pterippus" is obscure.

I know. Bringing obscure species names to the forefront is precisely the point.

bitwolfy said:
I'm not sure what the purpose of this topic is then.

Where I'm from, we call it being a know-it-all.

proceleon said:
I know. Bringing obscure species names to the forefront is precisely the point.

Feel free to make your own site to educate people on the proper naming of fictional animals.

As I said before, the purpose of tags is not to establish some kind of absolute truth. It is to make searching for good content faster and easier.
In my opinion, the best way to do so is to use commonly known and well-established terms.
This is not an educational site. This is a porn site. Or an art archive, if you are feeling prudish.

Much like Clawdragons above, I disagree with a number of tagging decisions the administration has made.
Renaming things like "sabertooth_tiger" to machairodontine, for example, is just as bad as this "pterripus" debacle.
It makes tagging more difficult, it make browsing inconvenient, and helps absolutely no one.

ccoyote said: Where I'm from, we call it being a know-it-all.

I would like to add the word "insufferable" to that.

bitwolfy said:
Feel free to make your own site to educate people on the proper naming of fictional animals.

As I said before, the purpose of tags is not to establish some kind of absolute truth. It is to make searching for good content faster and easier.
In my opinion, the best way to do so is to use commonly known and well-established terms.
This is not an educational site. This is a porn site. Or an art archive, if you are feeling prudish.

Much like Clawdragons above, I disagree with a number of tagging decisions the administration has made.
Renaming things like "sabertooth_tiger" to machairodontine, for example, is just as bad as this "pterripus" debacle.
It makes tagging more difficult, it make browsing inconvenient, and helps absolutely no one.

I would like to add the word "insufferable" to that.

There are already a number of sites which recognise the term Pterippus and define it as such. The Creature World Wiki even uses Rainbow Dash as its image reference, but that's besides the point.
If what you were saying were true, we'd still be using basic terms like 'bat' and 'elephant' as official tags. The simple fact of recent tagging is that it's leaning into a more scientific approach, which does bring with it certain values. Values that, as I stated in this thread's title, the term Pegasus contradicts.

That's not to say scientific terms don't have their drawbacks. I agree that no one in the world will EVER type "machairodontine" to look for a sabretooth. Like, ever. But that's where aliases come in. You can type in "bat" all the live-long day and you'll get results for "chiropteran" regardless, so the user experience goes completely unchanged.
"Pterippus" is also relatively future-proof. As NotMeNotYou explains in the other linked thread, the distinction between species and characters is important, and making sure people can easily tag the Greek Pegasus, the Disney Pegasus or any other characters of the same name as well as making sure any other winged horse characters don't get mistakenly tagged as one of the pre-existing Pegasus characters when art is made of them.

As Versperus very well puts it: "It's not really a concern if people know the proper name for it pretense as the alias redirects, if anything the new aliases are a learning experience."

demesejha said:
What is there to be gained from using your newly suggested tag. What does it bring to the table the current one doesnt.

Does the current tag cause harm?
Is the current tag functionally worse or lesser?
Is the new tag functionally superior?
Does the new tag help anyone?

If the answer to all of these is no. Which is the case.

It's not a "newly suggested tag". It was implemented some time ago, but then silently reversed.

And the answer to all of those is yes. Well, "harm" is a bit of a loaded term, but in the sense of "causes issues", it's yes. Character-name-as-species-name is something that causes problems with proper implications being implemented; if you want to draw the mythological character Pegasus changed into a human, it would be incorrect to tag it with equine, if someone wants to draw it having lost its wings, you wouldn't tag wings. Funny enough, pegasus currently implies equine and wings, which means anyone that wants to draw that character differently will get tagged wrong. If we're to follow previous reasonings on the subject of characters-as-species, those implications should be removed, which would reduce the functionality of the tagging system. Either way, whether those implications stay or go, there are issues. As such, the current tag is functionally worse or lesser as it conflates the character and the species in the tagging system, the new tag would be functionally superior as it would differentiate the character from the species, and the new tag helps people by allowing proper implications.

While pterripus may not be the most well-known of terms, it does exist outside of this site, so it's not like e6 would be requiring people to use a new word it created out of nowhere.

watsit said: ...

Well, there's pegasus_(disney) for the disney interpretation of the Pegasus. It only has like 50 posts total.
I would argue that if any images do get uploaded of the mythological version of the character, it would be more convenient to create a pegasus_(mythology) character tag, rather than renaming an entire species.

bitwolfy said:
Well, there's pegasus_(disney) for the disney interpretation of the Pegasus. It only has like 50 posts total.
I would argue that if any images do get uploaded of the mythological version of the character, it would be more convenient to create a pegasus_(mythology) tag, rather than renaming an entire species.

You're not renaming them though, Pterippus existed beforehand.

proceleon said:
You're not renaming them though, Pterippus existed beforehand.

Are you going to argue semantics now?
You want pegasus to become pterippus. That's called renaming.

bitwolfy said:
Are you going to argue semantics now?
You want pegasus to become pterippus. That's called renaming.

Updating a tag to better serve its function as a species tag. That's all it is.
Side note: The existence of the "Pegasus (Disney)" tag would automatically necessitate a "Pegasus_(mythology)" tag to separate them. The last thing anyone wants in a tagging system though is a dozen or so Pegasus tags, so again, character and species would need further separation.

We should change unicorn to monoceros while we're at it. /s

proceleon said:
Side note: The existence of the "Pegasus (Disney)" tag would automatically necessitate a "Pegasus_(mythology)" tag to separate them.

Yeah that's not true at all. Tags like werewolf, sheep, pokémon, and many others all have other tags that share a name (werewolf_(kingdom_hearts), sheep_(ultimate_chicken_horse), pokémon_(species), etc.), and yet they don't need an identifier because they're what people would think of first and foremost. There's no reason that pegasus wouldn't be treated the same.

strikerman said:
Yeah that's not true at all. Tags like werewolf, sheep, pokémon, and many others all have other tags that share a name (werewolf_(kingdom_hearts), sheep_(ultimate_chicken_horse), pokémon_(species), etc.), and yet they don't need an identifier because they're what people would think of first and foremost. There's no reason that pegasus wouldn't be treated the same.

In those cases the species and the character, or series in Pokemon's case, have no alternative names to use, unlike Pegasus.
And you're literally misreading the statement. Whether the case is keeping Pegasus or Pterippus, the existence of two characters with the same name requires an identifier, since they'd both be character tags.
This is completely different to your examples, as there's clearly a hierarchy in the tagging system of Series, then Species, then Character. You're drawing false equivalence when the identifiers are only put on tags further down the hierarchy, which both Pegasus examples are.
So really, you're misunderstanding the system. The identifiers are necessary for two similar Character tags.

votp said:
We should change unicorn to monoceros while we're at it. /s

Again, false equivalence. Pegasus refers to one particular member of the Pterippus species, whereas Monoceros is literally just Unicorn in Greek. They're the same word in different languages, Pegasus and Pterippus are not.

Look, Proceleon, you're just going to argue this thing to death. You've made your point. It's already ad nauseum and driving people away. Why don't you just put it to a vote and get it over with.

ccoyote said:
Look, Proceleon, you're just going to argue this thing to death. You've made your point. It's already ad nauseum and driving people away. Why don't you just put it to a vote and get it over with.

He does not want to bring it to a vote.
He just wants to argue.

ccoyote said:
Look, Proceleon, you're just going to argue this thing to death. You've made your point. It's already ad nauseum and driving people away. Why don't you just put it to a vote and get it over with.

Already stated that there's a bias toward the familiar, therefore a vote won't work.
People won't view it objectively, they will simply go with what they already know.

proceleon said:
Already stated that there's a bias toward the familiar, therefore a vote won't work.
People won't view it objectively, they will simply go with what they already know.

So, what about the people who've been arguing against you up until now? People have already brought up points beyond the familiar.

strikerman said:
So, what about the people who've been arguing against you up until now? People have already brought up points beyond the familiar.

True, the term we have does its job, but none of that will change that in today's climate, the old term is no longer fit for purpose. There's doing a job, and there's doing a job well.
I would be willing to somewhat excuse the use of "winged_horse" as a tag, since it's probably as neutral as you could get, but who's going to vote for that?
Would anyone here accept "winged_horse"?

proceleon said:
Would anyone here accept "winged_horse"?

Why not change unicorn to horned_horse to keep the up with the format, while you are at it?
And probably change winged_unicorn to winged_horned_horse, to complete this absurd set.

bitwolfy said:
Why not change unicorn to horned_horse to keep the up with the format, while you are at it?
And probably change winged_unicorn to winged_horned_horse, to complete this absurd set.

Congratulations, you proved my point.

Right, then. Let's just tell you what you want to hear so we can all move on with our lives: "You're super smart and know more about any topic ever than any of us. We're all just silly little know-nothings compared to your overwhelming intellect. The admin should defer to your endless knowledge and do whatever you think is best. No one else's thoughts on the subject really matter."

There. Feel better?

ccoyote said:
Right, then. Let's just tell you what you want to hear so we can all move on with our lives: "You're super smart and know more about any topic ever than any of us. We're all just silly little know-nothings compared to your overwhelming intellect. The admin should defer to your endless knowledge and do whatever you think is best. No one else's thoughts on the subject really matter."

There. Feel better?

Your sincerity is overwhelming.

But no, the admins clearly agreed with my sentiment a year prior to this, and frankly silently changing it back makes me think something shady was going on behind the scenes seeing as they openly explained before exactly why they used Pterippus, so until action is taken this mistake will continue to go uncorrected.
Again, if any admin happens upon this thread, I fully invite them to explain the reversal on what is otherwise sound reasoning.

proceleon said:
Your sincerity is overwhelming.

I'm glad you're able to detect my sarcasm. It's just that you're talking in circles at this point. So many people clearly disagree with your point, but that doesn't seem to matter to you. I honestly just feel like your goal right now is to show off your knowledge and hear yourself talk.

ccoyote said:
I'm glad you're able to detect my sarcasm. It's just that you're talking in circles at this point. So many people clearly disagree with your point, but that doesn't seem to matter to you. I honestly just feel like your goal right now is to show off your knowledge and hear yourself talk.

And yet there is a historical record of Pterippus being chosen.
When this naming choice was brought up, fittingly enough by FrozenPineapple, the admins cited that Pterippus was a term that is indeed in use, citing multiple sources of its usage, although they failed to also cite Reji Joseph's painting entitled "Pterippus" (2019) and Kristl Thompson's book, Pterippus: The Awakening released in 2011, but I digress.

They also stated quite clearly that it was intended to differentiate between the species and the various characters that take the form of winged horses, using the original Greek and modern Disney incarnations as examples, and that using Pterippus would increase awareness of the term and educate people that this is the modern term that's coming into usage. Both of these goals they achieved entirely, so why on Earth would they backtrack?

The fact it was very quietly done is suspicious to me. I don't know if it was done simply to stop community backlash or if one admin went behind the others' backs to change it back or what, but something happened, and that something somehow went against the quite solid reasons they had for using Pterippus in the first place, so what the hell happened?

People arguing in favour of Pegasus would have a basis if the admins never changed the name, but they did a year ago, so it's clearly able to be used with no major issues. The only issue is that people who aren't familiar with it will refuse to learn and just go "but I don't know this word" ignoring the reason it was chosen in the first place. but that's it. Nothing of negative consequence will happen.

ccoyote said: I honestly just feel like your goal right now is to show off your knowledge and hear yourself talk.

I think you might be right.
He just keeps going on and on and on, even though no one is listening anymore.

bitwolfy said:
I think you might be right.
He just keeps going on and on and on, even though no one is listening anymore.

Is it too much to ask why a decision was retracted?

proceleon said:
Is it too much to ask why a decision was retracted?

If that's your goal, then why don't you send a direct message to admin and ask them instead of sitting here bloviating at us?

@bitWolfy -- Indeed.

ccoyote said:
If that's your goal, then why don't you send a direct message to admin and ask them instead of sitting here bloviating at us?

@bitWolfy -- Indeed.

Fine, if only because people have made this debate more complicated than it needs to be.

proceleon said:
Fine, if only because people have made this debate more complicated than it needs to be.

No, we disagreed with you because we see the issue differently from you. If you see that as a complication, that's on you, but it's not our responsibility to blindly agree with you on everything.

proceleon said:
Fine, if only because people have made this debate more complicated than it needs to be.

"People made this debate more complicated" == "People disagreed with you".
Am I reading this correctly here?

bitwolfy said:
"People made this debate more complicated" == "People disagreed with you".
Am I reading this correctly here?

That's how I interpret it.

Locking this for summa dedecus usque ad nauseam