Hey guys, we've finally got species tags added in. Feel free to convert a tag to a species tag by adding species: to the beginning and saving the post. This will only work if the tag has fewer than 100 posts attached (edit: still around 10, sorry), so don't go trying to convert fox to a species tag, the admins will handle that.

We can use this thread to discuss which tags should be species tags and which shouldn't. For example, should monster_girl be a species? Undead?

For reference, here's a list of general tags, ordered by number of posts: http://e621.net/tag/index?type=0&order=count

NOTE TO ADMINS: Don't change the type of any tags with over 1000 posts until the new update is applied tomorrow. Doing so will crash the site for upwards of an hour.

Um... peacock only has 49 posts but I can't change it to a species tag. >.>

i can't change anything yet
i've tried changing Rottweiler to species but it's not changing...

Members can only change the types of tags with very low usage. I'm not sure what the cutoff is, but it is <49 (Tony's "fewer than 100" info is technically correct, which is the best kind of correct!). Rottweiler has 76 usages, so that's not going to work.

Update: cutoff is somewhere under 15 usages.

"Less than" is much less helpful than "less than or equal to".

By applying science, I have determined that the cutoff is somewhere between 11 and 15 usages.

Tony said 10 in IRC, but I managed to convert vampire_bat which has 11 uses (clarification: vampire_bat shows 10 in the tag count, but has 11 search results, which may be related).

Yeah, Aurali didn't actually change the cutoff to 100 which I suggested, sorry about that.

Also, we figured out that e621 really doesn't like updating 20,000+ posts at once when a common tag like fox or canine has its type changed, so tomorrow I'll try to push out an update to temporarily disable that.

What this means is that changing any tag's type will be instant, with no 500 error problems, but searching/ordering with the type metatags such as order:speciestags won't be correct for a post until it's saved (which is as easy as clicking Edit, then Save).

NOTE TO ADMINS: Don't change the type of any tags with over 1000 posts until the new update is applied tomorrow. Doing so will crash the site for upwards of an hour.

tony311 said:
We can use this thread to discuss which tags should be species tags and which shouldn't. For example, should monster_girl be a species? Undead?

I think inclusive is better.

Others:

Edits: Added tags with >1000 posts. >300. >200. >100. >50.

Sooooo
Pokemon. Species, yes?

ippiki_ookami said:
Sooooo
Pokemon. Species, yes?

Can a tag be copyright, species, and ambiguous?

Probably not since there are 17791 pokemon posts and not all of them contain pokemon.

Yes. There are many of each type of pokemon (except legendaries, and considering fan characters there's probably several of each of those too). Species type is a better fit than character.

Adrian, the way I understand it is changing each type of pokemon to a species tag from a char tag. The "pokemon" tag would remain copyright.

Each type of pokemon doesn't make sense either, they're not separate species since cross breeding is possible.

Ok I made a list of every species that I saw with over 50 tags. Below that it just starts to look fake. Feel free to edit/strikeout the list.

Adrian_Blazevic said:
Probably not since there are 17791 pokemon posts and not all of them contain pokemon.

I was referring to the individual species. The Pokemon tag would remain a copyright tag.

Hammie said:
Each type of pokemon doesn't make sense either, they're not separate species since cross breeding is possible.

Makes more sense than character tags, since there are more than one of each type (to my knowledge). Not only that, but calling a ninetails and a gyarados the same species is a bit absurd.

That's great news Tony!

I'm a bit confused about its usage though
Is there an accessible list (similar to Adrian's) that shows the rank of each species tag in relation to other species tags?

For example, are tags like equine, canine, feline etc. treated the same way as fox, cat, or horse?

ippiki_ookami said:
I was referring to the individual species. The Pokemon tag would remain a copyright tag.
Makes more sense than character tags, since there are more than one of each type (to my knowledge). Not only that, but calling a ninetails and a gyarados the same species is a bit absurd.

Well clearly, a gyarados and a ninetails can't breed.
But calling a nidoran male, and a nidoran female different species, or a gardevoir and a gallade different species seems just as absurd to me.

Hammie said:
Well clearly, a gyarados and a ninetails can't breed.
But calling a nidoran male, and a nidoran female different species, or a gardevoir and a gallade different species seems just as absurd to me.

But calling them characters is more absurd, since not all pikachus are the same one.

titaniachkt said:
That's great news Tony!

I'm a bit confused about its usage though
Is there an accessible list (similar to Adrian's) that shows the rank of each species tag in relation to other species tags?

For example, are tags like equine, canine, feline etc. treated the same way as fox, cat, or horse?

Yes, I believe that those should be species tags too. Also, unknown_species should be a species tag in the same way that unknown_artist is an artist tag.

slyroon said:
But calling them characters is more absurd, since not all pikachus are the same one.

Sure, but I'm not advocating calling them characters either, do neither.

Hammie said:
Sure, but I'm not advocating calling them characters either, do neither.

Well they have to be one or the other, and i vote for species

slyroon said:
Well they have to be one or the other, and i vote for species

What? No they don't. Why would they have to be one or the other?
There's tons of tags that aren't species or character tags, most tags are.

Hammie said:
What? No they don't. Why would they have to be one or the other?
There's tons of tags that aren't species or character tags, most tags are.

Yeah, but milotic and pikachu are very different tags from things like breasts and clothes.

Hammie said:
What? No they don't. Why would they have to be one or the other?
There's tons of tags that aren't species or character tags, most tags are.

Okay, let me explain how tags work around here.

Artist: It's used to highlight who made the image.

Character: It's used to highlight a person/Character who is in a picture by name.

Species: It's used to highlight what kind of animal(s) there is in an image.

General: It's used on everything that doesn't fit any category above.

Do you still think that the different kind of Pokémons, doesn't fit in the species category?

Test-Subject_217601 said:
Um... peacock only has 49 posts but I can't change it to a species tag. >.>

(Jayfeather) said:
i can't change anything yet
i've tried changing Rottweiler to species but it's not changing...

I had no problem changing them, but there you go ;)

slyroon said:
I had no problem changing them, but there you ;)

But you're a contributor, not a regular member like us! ;A;

slyroon said:
Okay, let me explain how tags work around here.

Artist: It's used to highlight who made the image.

Character: It's used to highlight a person/Character who is in a picture by name.

Species: It's used to highlight what kind of animal(s) there is in an image.

General: It's used on everything that doesn't fit any category above.

Do you still think that the different kind of Pokémons, doesn't fit in the species category?

No, because they aren't a species.
They also aren't a character.
So don't classify them as either, easy.

Hammie said:
No, because they aren't a species.
They also aren't a character.
So don't classify them as either, easy.

Hammie said:
No, because they aren't a species.
They also aren't a character.
So don't classify them as either, easy.

Pokémon (Japanese: ポケットモンスター Pocket Monsters; ポケモン Pokémon for short) are 649 known species of creatures that inhabit the Pokémon world, however, it is implied that there are more waiting to be discovered.)

I checked a wiki. Your argument is now invalid.

Test-Subject_217601 said:
Pokémon (Japanese: ポケットモンスター Pocket Monsters; ポケモン Pokémon for short) are 649 known species of creatures that inhabit the Pokémon world, however, it is implied that there are more waiting to be discovered.)

I checked a wiki. Your argument is now invalid.

*High-five*

and i guess the same go for digimons

slyroon said:
*High-five*

and i guess the same go for digimons

Hmm... I guess so.

Just because the japanese can't translate the word doesn't mean it's species the same way we should use it here.

Would you consider different breeds of dog to be species tags? Different Breeds of horses?
Cats(house, not big they're all different species)?

Hammie said:

Would you consider different breeds of dog to be species tags? Different Breeds of horses?
Cats(house, not big they're all different species)?

...yes?

First, those are breeds, not species.
Second, I checked the offical Pokemon website, and they never refer to "species" of Pokemon anywhere, so you can take your wiki and stuff it.

Hammie said:
Just because the japanese can't translate the word doesn't mean it's species the same way we should use it here.

Would you consider different breeds of dog to be species tags? Different Breeds of horses?
Cats(house, not big they're all different species)?

While they're techinically the same subspecies (canis familiaris), the species tag should still apply to them, because they, and I think this is the important thing, identify what kind of creature is in the image. This is also the reason why I believe umbrella tags like canine and feline should be species tags, despite not actually being species.

Hammie said:
First, those are breeds, not species.
Second, I checked the offical Pokemon website, and they never refer to "species" of Pokemon anywhere, so you can take your wiki and stuff it.

First, do you really need to respond in such an aggressive manner?

But back to the point, they're breeds of a species so they should still be counted as a species.

The pokédex on the official website also calls them a species.

Fair enough, if that's how we're intended to use them, but then it's not really a "species" tag.

720p said:
First, do you really need to respond in such an aggressive manner?

But back to the point, they're breeds of a species so they should still be counted as a species.

The pokédex on the official website also calls them a species.

They said my argument was invalid simply because they found the word on a wiki, so... yes, I do.
As for the Pokedex, it gives them a "species" but that's not the name of the pokemon in the species field.

Hammie said:
They said my argument was invalid simply because they found the word on a wiki, so... yes, I do.
As for the Pokedex, it gives them a "species" but that's not the name of the pokemon in the species field.

It's what the Pokemon is a species of. i.e Squirtle is a turtle species of Pokemon.

720p said:
It's what the Pokemon is a species of. i.e Squirtle is a turtle species of Pokemon.

Sure, but what they're discussing is the names of pokemon being used as species tags.
Which again, I am fine with if that's how we're using that sort of tag, but it's not really species at that point.
Just an identifier of what sort of animal a character is.

ippiki_ookami said:
Not only that, but calling a ninetails and a gyarados the same species is a bit absurd.

Well, if you consider IVs and moves to be genetic information, it is possible for there to be a gene flow between ninetails and gyarados (with suitable intermediaries*). Pokemon are sort of like a ring species, except way more complicated.

*for this specific example, we need to find a chain from Field to either Water 2 or Dragon (so that the genes can be passed along the chain until being bred with a female ninetails or gyarados). The chain is nice and short in this case, since there are pokemon that share both Field and Dragon and others that share Field and Water 2 egg groups, meaning that the chain can go vulpix line (ninetails) <-> ekans line/scraggy line/wailmer line <-> magikarp line (gyarados).

Hammie said:
Sure, but what they're discussing is the names of pokemon being used as species tags.
Which again, I am fine with if that's how we're using that sort of tag, but it's not really species at that point.
Just an identifier of what sort of animal a character is.

That's exactly what it is.

Hammie said:
Sure, but what they're discussing is the names of pokemon being used as species tags.
Which again, I am fine with if that's how we're using that sort of tag, but it's not really species at that point.
Just an identifier of what sort of animal a character is.

*Flips the table*

That is what species mean.

tony311 said:
That's exactly what it is.

Maybe people are taking "species tag" a little too literally. :/

Test-Subject_217601 said:
Maybe people are taking "species tag" a little too literally. :/

They shouldn't. Exactly what constitutes a species is contentious enough in RL. Trying to figure out exactly what constitutes a species with furry fandom's flagrant disregard for biology cannot possibly end well.

Snowy said:
They shouldn't. Exactly what constitutes a species is contentious enough in RL. Trying to figure out exactly what constitutes a species with furry fandom's flagrant disregard for biology cannot possibly end well.

If we took it as the exact definition of a species, I don't think there's actually be many species tags used.

Kotep said:
Yeah, for furries, hyenas are canines, so furries officially do not get to use biological definitions of species any more.

bio101

Hyenas aren't in Canidae and they're not in Felidae either, they're in their own family. Hyeanidae is closest evolutionarily to Felidae (and Viverridae which is the civets and genets) but thanks to the magic of convergent evolution, they physically resemble canids.

holy shit so much color...

So we're in agreement about the pokimons? If so we can begin putting that into effect.

I was the only one disputing it, and I now agree, so I'd say go for it.

see updated list

Need some opinions on the remaining tags in the list.

Someone check the remaining 43 on my list.

Uhm... why is a toaster a species tag?

anomaly said:
Uhm... why is a toaster a species tag?

Don't question it. Just don't.

anomaly said:
Uhm... why is a toaster a species tag?

One of the admins.

ladybug should have species tag, but it has >10 count, so I can't change it.

I've been digging around the various non-Renamon Digimon tags, making them species tags, flamedramon, veemon and exveemon still need to be made species tags though and I can't do it.

EDIT: agumon, wargreymon, blackwargreymon, angewomon, terriermon, shoutmon, elecmon, gargomon, gomamon, gumdramon, gazimon, growlmon, leomon, ladydevimon, patamon, palmon, gabumon and weregarurumon also.

I quickly checked by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_birds_by_common_name and seagull, toucan, ostrich, goose, albatross, stork, pigeon, dove need species tag.

Also, crane} has two meanings and maybe should be separated.

Bump

tortoise also need species tag. Why exactly limit for species is so low? Couldn't it be raised to 100, or something?

anomaly said:
tortoise also need species tag. Why exactly limit for species is so low? Couldn't it be raised to 100, or something?

That is old info, there is no limit

Adrian_Blazevic said:
That is old info, there is no limit

I still can't change seagull, and it has 29 uses. Also when there was mentioned bug (here) that artist tag cannot be changed, I also was unable to change it.

Do it through this (I already changed seagull): http://e621.net/tag

Look for general (edit)

Adrian_Blazevic said:
Do it through this (I already changed seagull): http://e621.net/tag

Look for general (edit)

I'm just a member - I have access denied.

Whoops. Changed them and set crane to ambiguous.

Update: I see the below has been done. Awesome sauce!
-----------------------------------------------------
unigan <- species
Example: http://e621.net/post/show/250598/

diamond_dogs_(mlp) <- species

anomaly said:
diamond_dogs_(mlp) <- species

I don't think they are different enough to be considered species. For now, they are just 3 canines part of a diamond-mine gang.

Murmillos said:
I don't think they are different enough to be considered species. For now, they are just 3 canines part of a diamond-mine gang.

As far, as I remember, there are more diamond dogs, and those 3 are only leaders. Besides this, there are few OC already, like post #229447. Also I don't think that number is problem, since draconequus is species, and there is only one living example of it in Equestria, and he was turned into stone. Equestria's environmental organizations sucks.

New one: pandaren
Edit: completed :)

Everything from here with count > 10 should have species tag except:
amon,timon, sleezimon, acidrenamon, ryodramon

I'll throw in my two-cent's worth, here, Lance. For the record, I'm an old guy -- don't ask how old. Let's just say I've been retired for several years, so I have time on my hands. I also have a college education and several degrees, with concentrations in biology and, more specifically, taxonomy (classification of things).

I thought I'd like to start giving back to e621, since I've been a lurker/downloader for, like, forever it seems. I figured that your species tagging project might just be the best use of my skills to help out on this site, since I'm pretty good at discerning things like patterns, relationships, and trends.

Let me go down the list and comment on the entries which haven't been crossed out. I might also find some that have that might need to be reconsidered. I'm loosening up my perspective on "species", here, since this term isn't being used in its proper, techical sense on this site, but merely being used as a term to imply a grouping of anatomically-similar characters.

Part 1 (A - C)

albino -- not a species. This is a genetic anomaly that can exist in any animal species and many plant species.

anthro -- Not, of itself, a species in my perspective. "dog" is a species, and probably best implies an anthro dog on this site, with "feral dog" being used for the ordinary four-footed sort. "anthro" as a tag, then, applies to any anthropomorphized animal species, and should be a general tag.

anthro_on_feral -- This is a sex act, and not a species.

anthrofied -- Appears to have a specialized use in indicating anthropomorphic "feral" species that have been given an upright bipedal stance similar or identical to that exhibited by humans. It's not a "species" in this sense, but a re-rendering of a four-legged character as a two-legged character and could apply to just about any species.

aquatic -- This is not a species, but refers to the natural habitat of many different species.

baby -- Not a species. All animal species can have "babies".

beast -- Probably should be synomymous with "feral", since this implies a non-anthropomorphic animal such as exists in the real world. It's obviously not a "species" by itself, but could apply to every single existing and imginary species.

birds -- I fail to even see the need for tags that indicate the plural of an existing tag. We should probably not even have this tag, but instead make the following implications: birds -> bird -> avian.

black_cat -- I see this as an unnecessary proliferation of tags, and I recall, somewhere, one of the admins commenting on this issue. So we also have "white_cat", "blue_cat", "<fill in the color of your choice from 65 million choices_cat", and then we have to apply this to every single other species. I can see the utility of doing this, but we should probably wait until our programmer figures out how to implement hierarchical tag inheritance to simplify what would be an enormous "tag tree" by allowing this sort of practice.

buck -- Not a species. It implies the male of a number of species and should, therefore, be relegated to service as a gender tag. To complicate the issue, someone might use this to indicate the presence of an animal in an image which is "bucking", although that word would best be used to describe this action.

cabbit -- I'm not sure what the checkmark means, but a "cabbit" is a valid term used for a hybrid, on par with the real life use of "mule" to indicate a donkey-horse hybrid. In this sense, it's a perfectly good species tag.

calico -- Already aliased to "calico_cat", but see my comment about "black_cat", as well.

changeling -- This can have several meanings, but none of them indicate a single, identifiable species. I suggest that this should probably be given the status of general tag.

chibi -- I don't know what the "X" beside it means, but this is not a species, but is more like what I described for "anthro". It's merely a different way of portraying any species.

chimera -- I'm sort of divided about this. The classical Greek chimera was a specific combination of animal types. Today it's used to indicate any mosaic of different species, or even of colors (a calico cat is actually a genetic chimera, in case you didn't know). I'd say that to avoid any complications from the way it's presently being used that it's best to have it as a species tag.

corpse -- Definately a candidate for general status. Any species can have a corpse.

creature -- How is this actually intended to be used, here? Doing a search with that tag seems to indicate that people use it to describe any species they can't identify that doesn't fall under some general category (like canine, for instance). Could this best be aliased to "monster", or perhaps the converse? Alternately, it could be aliased to "unknown_species", since that's how it actually seems to be used.

crossbreed -- Alias to "hybrid" and see below for that tag.

cyborg -- I don't see this as a "species", since any species can have cybernetic enhancements.

Part 2 (D - H)

doe -- Doesn't work as a "species", since a number of distinct species use the term "doe" to indicate the female. Case in point: female deer are "does". So are female rabbits. This is a gender tag and not a species tag.

dragonborn -- Any species can be Dovahkiin (yes, I'm an avid Skyrim player, currently on my 27th playthrough of the game). So, this is not a species, but more of a title.

egyptian -- There are lots of species which hail from Egypt. Not a species tag.

feral -- I don't really think this qualifies as a species tag, for the same reasons I gave for "anthro".

feral_on_feral -- Again, this describes a sex act and not a species.

fireflies -- Needs to be eliminated as a redundant "plurality tag". "firefly" is a perfectly good species tag.

folf -- Fox-wolf hybrid? Based upon "tag what you see" this is problematical, since so many canids are portrayed in furry artwork in a generic form that is impossible to classify as one species or another. Looking at examples of "folfs" (folves = plural?) on this site, very few are recognizably fox-wolf hybrids. I say it's a valid species tag, but it's already abusing the "tag what you see" rule.

foxgirl -- Just one of many possible manifestations of kemonomimi where animals are drawn as bishōjo/bishōnen. Welcome to the intersection of Western and Eastern culture! Yes, it's a valid "species", I think. As would be "foxgirl", "wolfgirl", "snakegirl", "platypusgirl" and anything else along those lines you can think of. And, of course, don't forget the "boy" version of all of these.

furrification -- I couldn't find a wiki article on this, and, honestly, I can't figure out how it's being used, since it seems to have several distinct meanings, depending upon who is tagging the image. In most cases it seems to indicate taking a non-furry scenario and rendering it as furry in some way. In some other cases I really see no connection with the image and a non-furry rendering of it, so it would, for me, fail the "tag what you see" rule. At any rate, this does not indicate a species. Search "furrification portal_(series)" and you'll see why.

ghost -- This is a term that can apply to any species. In my way of thinking such a term does not, itself, justify a species tag.

goddess -- Again with the "X". If that means you've already eliminated it as a species tag, then good. If not, well, any species can be depicted as deified.

goo -- Not a species. "Goo" is, well, "goo". It's sticky, slimy, viscous stuff that typically drips from tentacles in hentai tentacle rape porn. Stick with the dictionary definition for this one.

grey_fox -- Needs an alias with "gray_fox", to cover both the American and British spellings of a color midway between white and black. This is an actual species in the real world (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) and should be a valid species tag, here.

haruneko -- A Google search on this term doesn't help much except to convince me that there is no "species" associated with this term.

humanized -- Same as "anthrofied". This doesn't indicate a species, since any anthropomorphic species can be "humanized", and therefore represents an alternate rendering of a character.

humanoid -- I'll have to say that this should be an invalid tag. Technically, "humanoid" means "having human characteristics", which applies to all "anthropomorphic animals", and, therefore, to most of the art on this site. It's used in a number of ways, here, some of them having nothing to do with "humanoid", but actually indicating characters that appear to be fully human. It's also used to apply to anthropomorphic characters.

hybrid -- Not a species tag, really, but should be a general tag. Any number of species can be hybridized in art.

Part 3 (J - M)

jakkai -- This is a species created by Raizy (an artist on DA) for a webcomic, and, thus, should be a valid species tag.

kitten -- Notwithstanding the fact that some animals which are not cats have "kittens" as babies and the fact that a "kitten" is a woman who dates older men, I think this, as with all species-oriented age terms, should be a valid species tag.

kyuubi -- As I understand it, this is a demon that takes the form of a fox with nine tails. It is, therefore, a valid species tag.

langurhali -- A creation by Vera on DA, this is an acceptable species tag.

lioness -- Why is this "removed" when other gender-specific terms (such as "doe" and "buck") still exist? We can't have it both ways. Either we go with species gender terms like doe, mare, stallion, etc., or we don't. If we do, then they are species tags.

lombax -- This is a valid species from the Ratchet And Clank game series.

lupine -- Why was it removed? It has exactly the same taxonomic significance as other similar tags such as "equine" and "lapine".

lutrai -- This is a distinct species from the story setting "Rym".

malamute -- While not a distinct species, in keeping with the more general use of the term, here, it should be a valid species tag, as would be all tags for "breeds" of domestic animals. Note that in any wiki entry, "Malamute" should be capitalized, since this refers to the Malamute Eskimo people (now referred to as the "Kuuvangmiut", for your little lesson in anthropology for the day).

mammal -- I don't even know why we have this tag, since nearly all characters on this site which aren't "scalies" could be tagged thusly. I think it's redundant and should be relegated to the invalid tag bin.

margay -- This is a distinct real-life species (Leopardus wiedii) and should therefore be a valid species tag.

mascot -- I don't even understand why this was up for consideration as a species tag, and for reasons I hope are obvious, considering what the term "mascot" means.

mech/mecha -- I'm not that familiar with these contraptions, but considering what I do know of them, they're robots of a sort, right? I suppose, based upon the fandom, that it would be useful to search for this on the site, but I don't consider them "species". Still, I'd have to go along with giving the tag that status.

mephitoad -- I honestly don't know what one of these critters is, but the depictions of them on this site show a reasonably uniform body plan. Because of that it should be a valid species tag.

mutant -- No, I can't see giving this tag species status. Any species can have mutants.

Part 4 (N - Z)

nekomata -- Two-tailed cat, from Japanese mythology. Hence, valid species tag.

plushie -- Definitely not a species. They aren't even living creatures, but are toys or decorative items.

pokémon -- We already have very general usage of the term "species" on this site. Since "pokémon" refers to an aggregate of over 600 fictional species, and since we already have established precedant for grouping numerous species into a single species tag, this tag shoud be a valid species tag. The confusing issue, here, is that "Pokémon", with a capital "P", also refers to a franchise owned by Nintendo.

pokémorph -- Since this refers to an anthro version of a pokémon it can have valid species status only if "pokémon" is also accorded this status. Frankly, though, I would suggest relegating it to the general tag pile for the same reasons I gave for "anthrofied". A "pokémorph" is actually an "anthrofied pokémon". This is just one word doing the work of two.

ponification -- OK, I'll admit it. I have all variants of tags that include MLP stuff blacklisted. However, I did check out some of the posts that had this tag, and it seems to be used for characters which are not from the My Little Pony franchise rendered in the manner of MLP characters. If this is the actual usage for the term, then I don't think this is a valid species tag, for the same reasons that anthrofied does not qualify. In other words, it's just an alternate way of rendering a character with little more significance than giving a character an alternate outfit or hair style.

rabbitgirl -- Why remove it if you don't remove tags like catgirl or foxgirl? I think it represents a valid species search term and references a unique set of anatomical characteristics, just like the others do.

red_fox -- Of course this is a valid species tag, since it refers to an actual real-life species (Vulpes vulpes).

red_wolf -- Same as red_fox, but this time the species is Canis niger or Canis rufus (depending upon the authority you want to cite). I know this from personal experience, seeing as how I was involved in the Red Wolf Recovery Project a number of decades ago, and included the species in my own taxonomic review and revamping of the Family Canidae as a college project.

shiny_pokemon -- I'll admit to not being an expert on Pokémon. I'm not even a fan, although I think Pikachu is sort of cute. I have two problems with this tag, though. First, it should be "shiny_pokémon" (note the diacritical mark above the "e") to make it consistent with other usage of the term on this site. Alternately (and probably better) would be to alias it with the proper term, since most people are probably too lazy to figure out how to type an "é". Secondly, this is just an alternate coloration for standard pokémon characters that meets certain criteria. It's not a valid species tag in my book and any character tagged with this should also be tagged with "pokémon", anyway.

skeleton -- Not a species, at least to me, since almost any species you care to point at randomly on this site will have a skeleton. If the species is obvious from the image then you would tag it with the proper species tag and also the "skeleton" tag, which should just be a general tag.

snowman -- As a species? I don't think so. In a furry world I'm sure you'd see snowmen of all different species. I think it should be a general tag.

sprite -- OK, I have to ask. What are the marks you put after these tags (this one has an "X")? As for this as a tag, "sprites" are a mythological creature that can be rendered in many different forms, and it's also a soft drink. As far as its use on this site goes, "tag what you see" would render this an invalid tag, since you can't tell merely by looking at a creature whether or not it is actually a sprite.

teddy_bear -- It's a toy, and should have the same status as "plushie", which is also just a "thing" and not a species. In fact, we should probably have an implication: teddy_bear -> plushie.

turian -- This is a fictional species from the game Mass Effect, and therefore this is a valid species tag.

vampire -- This should be a general tag, since any species can be depicted as a vampire.

white_tiger -- Again, tag proliferation at work, here, and, again, I think at least one of the admins has already expressed some concern about this. While useful, tags that relate to the colors that are possible in every single species depicted on this site would create an enormous and unwieldy cloud of tags.

wolfgirl -- Remove it only if you remove all the other similar tags that combine the species of an animal with either "boy" or "girl". Otherwise, it's a valid species tag.

zombie -- Any creature can be "zombiefied" (is that even a word?). Thus, this is not a valid species tag.

OK, that's it. I hope you find at least some of this useful, and I'll be around and hanging out on the forum most every day if you want to hash some of this out with me.

Shouldn't "ringtail" be a species tag and not a general tag? As far as I know that's the only way it's used on this site.

(edit) And while we're on this subject the word "it's" needs to be changed to "its" in the wiki for "ringtail". "it's" is a contraction of "it is". "its" is the possessive form of "it".

RedRaven said:
Shouldn't "ringtail" be a species tag and not a general tag? As far as I know that's the only way it's used on this site.

(edit) And while we're on this subject the word "it's" needs to be changed to "its" in the wiki for "ringtail". "it's" is a contraction of "it is". "its" is the possessive form of "it".

Done and done, but keep in mind that any unlocked wiki article can be edited by any member at any time, and doesn't require an admin to fix typos :)