watsit said:
Wouldn't that be covered by hybrid, non-mammal_breasts, and the other tags already? Seems like it would be begging to be applied to other species like charr_(original), salazzle_(original), etc... where would it end?

At this point, I'll just wait and see what will happen. I mean, for now, anatomically_inaccurate has fair uses and a proper definition, and there's only the avali with a group that prefer the original work and it's somewhat resolved. If there comes a time where the other set of groups goes here demanding a separate tag (or something idk) for an original work of another fictional species and it gets too much and leads to instability, then a preparation is needed for this, so that we act on these groups accordingly and without gatekeeping and breaking of site rules.

watsit said:
Wouldn't that be covered by hybrid, non-mammal_breasts, and the other tags already? Seems like it would be begging to be applied to other species like charr_(original), salazzle_(original), etc... where would it end?

That doesn't sound like much of a bad thing. The characters/species that have fanbases, of which a significant ammount wish to see the original, should have corresponding tags to make that easier. It doesn't need to be proactively made for every single species, if no one's asking for it or complaining about it, there's no need.

halycon_fluff said:
That doesn't sound like much of a bad thing. The characters/species that have fanbases, of which a significant ammount wish to see the original, should have corresponding tags to make that easier. It doesn't need to be proactively made for every single species, if no one's asking for it or complaining about it, there's no need.

That same logic has been used to argue for tags like male renamon, because people like it but they're predominantly depicted as female or intersex (when lore says they can be whatever). Or something like a female charr tag because they often get tagged as male or ambiguous with TWYS (despite lore indicating their sexually dimorphic characteristics). Those suggestions get rejected because of the precedent it would set in allowing other specific tags that various would people want but can't be specifically tagged with TWYS. I have seen complaints about charr where liberties have been taken to give females breasts and more feminine faces, so shouldn't charr_(original) be just as valid as avali_(original)? Or people that don't want to see salazzle with tits since they're not supposed to have them, so salazzle_(original) should be good? There are characters with fanbases where a significant amount don't want to see them paired with anyone but their canon bf/gf, so should there be tags for those? It would easily get out of hand.

watsit said:
That same logic has been used to argue for tags like male renamon, because people like it but they're predominantly depicted as female or intersex (when lore says they can be whatever). Or something like a female charr tag because they often get tagged as male or ambiguous with TWYS (despite lore indicating their sexually dimorphic characteristics). Those suggestions get rejected because of the precedent it would set in allowing other specific tags that various would people want but can't be specifically tagged with TWYS. I have seen complaints about charr where liberties have been taken to give females breasts and more feminine faces, so shouldn't charr_(original) be just as valid as avali_(original)? Or people that don't want to see salazzle with tits since they're not supposed to have them, so salazzle_(original) should be good? There are characters with fanbases where a significant amount don't want to see them paired with anyone but their canon bf/gf, so should there be tags for those? It would easily get out of hand.

Yeah i mean, you're kinda just, asking the same question again. not really sure what the problem with tags like that would be. kinda seeming like you're having a problem where there is none at this point. Provided you're referring to more than just tits of course. if you are just talking about tits, then obviously, breasts covers that, but there's obviously more than tits in regards to alot of these species. If the admins are alright with a tag that can be applied to original-accurate species in posts, i don't see the issue, especially since it gives people the capability to look up those sorts of pictures. That's what this site is for.

halycon_fluff said:
Yeah i mean, you're kinda just, asking the same question again. not really sure what the problem with tags like that would be. kinda seeming like you're having a problem where there is none at this point.

I'm just pointing out this kind of thing has been rejected before because the admins didn't want to open that floodgate, so I don't imagine it would be accepted now. I could perhaps see a more generic accurate_species tag, maybe, which can go with any species instead of having one for each, but that's essentially what anatomically_inaccurate is doing now.

watsit said:
I'm just pointing out this kind of thing has been rejected before because the admins didn't want to open that floodgate, so I don't imagine it would be accepted now. I could perhaps see a more generic accurate_species tag, maybe, which can go with any species instead of having one for each, but that's essentially what anatomically_inaccurate is doing now.

Well it just was accepted, even suggested as a solution. So imma take it.

halycon_fluff said:
Well it just was accepted, even suggested as a solution. So imma take it.

I'm not sure what you mean. There is no approval process for new tags, you just start using it and can make a wiki page without anyone having to approve it first. It was suggested, but IMO, it didn't consider the precedent being set.

Anatomically_inaccurate tag has been removed from all avali pictures, and Avali_(original) is now in use.

halycon_fluff said:
Anatomically_inaccurate tag has been removed from all avali pictures, and Avali_(original) is now in use.

And now a month later I find myself posting in this thread as a result of the decision xD

So, I found my way here after doing a bunch of research to why there was a new tag apparently trying to define what is and isn't a 'real' Avali and causing drama in the community discords :p

Finding this thread I can see the rationalization now and how it came to be, but I'm not sure it's the right move. The avali_(original) tag, and it's wiki page looks like gatekeeping to the outside observer, splitting Avali into 'canonical' and 'non canonical' (And upsetting users who's characters find themselves failing the purity test).

Ultimately tagging isn't really my business, I'm pretty much an outsider to the maintenance of E621 and the etiquette of tag formats.

But throwing in my two cents as creator, the avali_(original) tag feels divisive by effectively applying a purity test to people's characters. I'm fully aware that avali fanart seems to pull their anatomy out of a random generator sometimes, which is as much my fault as anyone's for not supplying enough 'official' artwork, especially in regards to anatomy resulting in the race developing like an extended game of telephone. But people seem to be able to recognize the basic species even when it has 'extras' strapped to it.

Why exactly did we decide anatomically_inaccurate wasn't appropriate? - If people wanted to search for Avali that were "accurate_species" so to speak, all they'd need do is apply a subtraction wildcard to "anatomically_inaccurate" and they'd have the results they want

My stance is still that anthrofied renditions of semi-anthro species should just be separated out with the anthrofied tag.

ryuujinzero said:
And now a month later I find myself posting in this thread as a result of the decision xD

So, I found my way here after doing a bunch of research to why there was a new tag apparently trying to define what is and isn't a 'real' Avali and causing drama in the community discords :p

Finding this thread I can see the rationalization now and how it came to be, but I'm not sure it's the right move. The avali_(original) tag, and it's wiki page looks like gatekeeping to the outside observer, splitting Avali into 'canonical' and 'non canonical' (And upsetting users who's characters find themselves failing the purity test).

Ultimately tagging isn't really my business, I'm pretty much an outsider to the maintenance of E621 and the etiquette of tag formats.

But throwing in my two cents as creator, the avali_(original) tag feels divisive by effectively applying a purity test to people's characters. I'm fully aware that avali fanart seems to pull their anatomy out of a random generator sometimes, which is as much my fault as anyone's for not supplying enough 'official' artwork, especially in regards to anatomy resulting in the race developing like an extended game of telephone. But people seem to be able to recognize the basic species even when it has 'extras' strapped to it.

Why exactly did we decide anatomically_inaccurate wasn't appropriate? - If people wanted to search for Avali that were "accurate_species" so to speak, all they'd need do is apply a subtraction wildcard to "anatomically_inaccurate" and they'd have the results they want

let me start with this: I don't want to stop anyone from doing anything, all i want, is to be able to see more like what you created.

please read all the way through this.

Anatomically_Inaccurate is considered inappropriate, because of three main reasons.
1. users have complained about feeling offended by the tag applying to their characters, or their art.
2. there is arguement that the tag would be overly applicable, as almost all anthro characters are inaccurate, due to being anthro.
3. inaccurate/incorrectness when applied to a fictional species, without a public source specifying their exact anatomy, is hard to pin.

zenostone said:
I'll continue it here since its pertaining to my character.

Quoting from the lore tab of the wiki;

and in the reproduction section

I've read the lore you reference so biblically. I've had it quoted to many many times in DMs in discord. I'm tired of being segregated out of the "avali" groups because "ew tits". It's porn, this is a porn site. This tag is most definetly been a slap in the face because of history, and I'm more than willing to agree, that some instances, it's 100% usable. Tits and penises are not one. I'm willing to bet that 90% of the people that like Avali, would not like canon reproductive images of cloacal rubbing, as that doesn't get them going. I end my feeling rant there.

Other users here have made excellent points of other tags that are less insulting to be tagged under, and that I'd be more than fine be used alternatively, given that they can still be used to blacklist. On-model, non-mammalian_*, etc. Anatomically_inaccurate just invites more "this avali doesnt belong, do not like them, blacklist and shun". I'd even agree to using non-canon as a tag if it exists.

I'm sorry if this is more emotionally fueled than it should be but I'm tired of this argument.

The above quote, is an example of your worries. Ralaku feeling segregated, by the anatomically_inaccurate tag, being on their post. You can see, how they perceived that. that's why this tag was created instead of using anatomically inaccurate. It is the inverse, labeling something as accurate instead of something else, inaccurate. No posts, or characters, are being labeled a "not original avali", as to not offend anyways. Either way, being rid of the tag, would remove the capability to sift through all of the avali art created, to find avali modeled after your original anatomy and depictions. To make a tag for the job, you can only bend over backwards so much.

In short: this tag was made, because of your exact worries. People were complaining about the use of anatomically_inaccurate on their posts, claiming it made them feel segregated out, thus instead we use this tag for the 'anatomically accurate' avali, so no one feels segregated out.

I'm certain beyond a doubt you are aware that many are very, very passionate about your creation(s). Those who are passionate deserve a way to find things that reflect your work, right? and to do so, in such a way as to avoid in all possible facets, any offense, is even better, right? this tag, is the closest we can get to that. It's not telling anyone 'you're not a real avali', it's not meant to offend, it is simply meant to make it easier to find art that reflects your original creation and depictions. If there is still drama created by this tag, then it is inevitable. Though i feel, many people in the avali communities have gotten too comfortable with the word gatekeeping. There's nothing wrong with wanting to see original avali. What i love, is your creation. so again. I don't want to stop anyone from doing anything, all i want, is to be able to see more like what you created. That's not gatekeeping.