Implicating navel → mammal
Link to implication

Reason:

A visible navel is evidence of the character being a placental mammal. Since there are a hell of a lot of posts with navel -mammal it would be a lot quicker to implicate them than to tag them all.

I'm sorry but this seems like a really bad idea.

In reality, what you say is true. But do you really think that this:

post #165832

should be tagged mammal?

The problem with that is there are a lot of anthro reptiles that have navels on this site. This post for example. So I don't think it should imply mammal at all. Same reason that breasts do not equal mammal. Blame furry logic. :P

Durandal said:
I'm sorry but this seems like a really bad idea.

In reality, what you say is true. But do you really think that this:

post #165832

should be tagged mammal?

Hmm, good point.

Sneaky said:
Blame furry logic. :P

lol Yeah, I forgot about furry logic.

I usually only tag navel when:

• The navel is especially emphisized in the picture (something you might also tag midriff)
• The navel takes up a lot of space in the picture
• There's a navel piercing
• I'm desperate for an extra tag or two.
• I'm too lazy or tired to think of anything more useful to tag.

Not to say we shouldn't tag absolutely every single navel, I just figure I would rather remember to tag other things over navel most of the time.

Denied. Mostly because of anthros who are likely to be drawn with a navel no matter what species group they come from. But also because furry artists tend to mix and match traits, including navels, more based on how it looks and what they want to draw. And not really based on real world anatomical rules. So in the real world it would work; in the art world it would not.