https://e621.net/post_versions?search%5Bpost_id%5D=3999013
I know there's no point in arguing over a post getting tagged and locked as cub/young but I am confused on why it would get locked with the dwarfism tag. Not a tag that seems to even get used much and seems to contradict the other tags. Just something that got mixed in with the other 2 tags?

It looks to me like the brown owl is an adult who's short, while the white owl is cub. Not sure if that's what NotMeNotYou saw to lock those tags?

furrin_gok said:
It looks to me like the brown owl is an adult who's short, while the white owl is cub. Not sure if that's what NotMeNotYou saw to lock those tags?

I could see that just seems like the Dwarfism tag would also contradict the Feral and Anthro_on_feral tag. If anything it would be semi-anthro instead of feral, not Dwarfism.

linker said:
I could see that just seems like the Dwarfism tag would also contradict the Feral and Anthro_on_feral tag. If anything it would be semi-anthro instead of feral, not Dwarfism.

Why would it contradict though? Dwarfism refers to the 'how tall' someone is, an actual medical condition. Interesting read that shows occurrence of the condition on real animals (human cases being well know): https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/animals/does-dwarfism-occur-in-animals.html

rainercat said:
Why would it contradict though? Dwarfism refers to the 'how tall' someone is, an actual medical condition. Interesting read that shows occurrence of the condition on real animals (human cases being well know): https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/animals/does-dwarfism-occur-in-animals.html

Contradict as in the tag implys the characters are small because of dwarfism, but the locked cub tag also implys being small because there young. And ofc the Feral tag implying there small because there more realistic in size to a actual owl. It would be pretty far out there to make them all 3 at once, possible but not sure what that would look like. You do bring up a good point about it being a real medical condition, feels a bit wrong to label (and lock) someone else's character with a disability. I am probobly just overthinking it on that point tho.

linker said:
Contradict as in the tag implys the characters are small because of dwarfism, but the locked cub tag also implys being small because there young. And ofc the Feral tag implying there small because there more realistic in size to a actual owl. It would be pretty far out there to make them all 3 at once, possible but not sure what that would look like. You do bring up a good point about it being a real medical condition, feels a bit wrong to label (and lock) someone else's character with a disability. I am probobly just overthinking it on that point tho.

I think the logic for the lock is the following:
They are short because of dwarfism, and because they are short, they look like cubs.
If they are short because of dwarfism, then dwarfism tag is applied.
If a character that is short happens to look young, cub tag is also applied.

Cub doesn't always means cannonical age, only apparent one, if I understand things correctly.

m3g4p0n1 said:
Cub doesn't always means cannonical age, only apparent one, if I understand things correctly.

That's usually the case, yes. E.g. with characters like casey_hopper_(comfytail), who very much looks like a cub and is in situations that paint them as a cub, but 'canonically' they're in their 20s. Still, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, let's tag cub to be safe.

m3g4p0n1 said:
I think the logic for the lock is the following:
They are short because of dwarfism, and because they are short, they look like cubs.
If they are short because of dwarfism, then dwarfism tag is applied.
If a character that is short happens to look young, cub tag is also applied.

But if the cub tag is applied because they look young, they would be short due to looking young instead of having dwarfism. We don't apply dwarfism to cubs normally, do we?

m3g4p0n1 said:
They are short because of dwarfism, and because they are short, they look like cubs.
If they are short because of dwarfism, then dwarfism tag is applied.

None of the characters are short because of dwarfism, the 2 ferals would be average size for a owl but looks small being with a anthro character. I don't really care about the cub related tags, there is no way around it when a moderator decides that. But the dwarfism tag has only 250 images and I don't know of any being locked as it. Seems like it was just shoehorned in last second or accidentally locked in. If anything semi-anthro would fit in much better vs dwarfism.

watsit said:
But if the cub tag is applied because they look young, they would be short due to looking young instead of having dwarfism. We don't apply dwarfism to cubs normally, do we?

This as well

linker said:
None of the characters are short because of dwarfism, the 2 ferals would be average size for a owl but looks small being with a anthro character. I don't really care about the cub related tags, there is no way around it when a moderator decides that. But the dwarfism tag has only 250 images and I don't know of any being locked as it. Seems like it was just shoehorned in last second or accidentally locked in. If anything semi-anthro would fit in much better vs dwarfism.

Firstly, it wasn't shoehorned last second by the staff. I added it before the lock because this was a tag that looked to be applicable and like I said on the edit reason, I do not think those characters are underage, I think they are both midgets, but an admin decided against this and so I won't contest it. Although, it is weird it was locked since I thought tags were locked when there was a tag war ongoing, I doubt anybody would have removed dwarfism from the post if it was left as is, but I dunno.

wolfmanfur said:
Firstly, it wasn't shoehorned last second by the staff. I added it before the lock because this was a tag that looked to be applicable and like I said on the edit reason, I do not think those characters are underage, I think they are both midgets, but an admin decided against this and so I won't contest it. Although, it is weird it was locked since I thought tags were locked when there was a tag war ongoing, I doubt anybody would have removed dwarfism from the post if it was left as is, but I dunno.

I meant the Tag lock being shoehorned in with the other 2. I saw it was added earlier along side size_difference but that one was not locked in, would have guessed it was just locking the recently added tags if that was the case. I understand why someone would add that tag but it just seems really confusing on why that one in particular was locked.

linker said:
Contradict as in the tag implys the characters are small because of dwarfism, but the locked cub tag also implys being small because there young. And ofc the Feral tag implying there small because there more realistic in size to a actual owl.

Uhm, no. Remember that we follow "tag what you see", and there isn't just a single character on the picture, and the post has tags indicating that, just like posts with only a single character generally get the solo tag, unless someone just doesn't add it (which doesn't mean it shouldn't have, just means no one bothered adding it yet). This alone drops the allegation that "x implies being short because of x", the tag may exist because of any character depicted on the illustration.
On another related note, feral isn't used to indicate size at all, see feral ~macro ~micro for clear examples.

linker said:
You do bring up a good point about it being a real medical condition, feels a bit wrong to label (and lock) someone else's character with a disability. I am probobly just overthinking it on that point tho.

This isn't what I meant by the way, I only linked it to say that it occurs on animals other than humans (or well, 'anthros' in our context), reminder that amputee and disability tags exists, and people are attracted to anything and everything out there, these specific attractions (for example, missing an arm) are called "Paraphilia" (not "kinks" as some people like to put it), do a quick Google for that, Wikipedia has a list of common ones, also reminder that illustrations (as well as any input) can be used by the person attracted to that particular thing to fantasize (as with amputee, Wikipedia lists "Acrotomophilia: People with amputations" and "Apotemnophilia: Being an amputee", those are completely different things but I assure you, people can use the tag input to fantasize).

I know it may sound disgusting, but I got non-apparent disabilities (being short-sighted and having been legally blind in the past pre-op, also ASD), and I assure you that in my lifetime I have been approached by people who were interested because of that and only that. That said, exposing myself as being "on the other end" (except that mine are non-apparent), I don't think that tagging a disability is bad, if anything, it helps bring visibility to it and somewhat helps with normalization because you know, everyone is different (I mean, of course that this being mostly a furry porn site out of all things isn't the ideal, but it gets the message of seeing it through to a group of people). I say this knowing that people wouldn't be looking for the tag to begin with if they weren't already into it, but oh well, someone out there might learn a thing or two when checking tags after looking for something else. People who dislike it can just use the Blacklist, you see tags being used for color stuff and they're widely accepted, why wouldn't disabilities be? The only issue with tagging is when its used to offend someone, but again, if it's a character we are talking about (and characters are often viewed as the representation of someone, fursona), it went through a design process to have that, so the author/owner wants it to get X thing out there, otherwise they would have hid it or just not included... And don't take tag locks as being offensive, they just happen because of taggers disagreeing on what looks like what (or taking lore over sights, again, tag what you SEE).

Fun fact: Linking to wikis on this comment got me to open an implication request for Dwarfism -> Disability, because it isn't implicating it yet (I mean, Dwarfism lacks a Wiki by itself).

m3g4p0n1 said:
Cub doesn't always means cannonical age, only apparent one, if I understand things correctly.

Yeah, you're right *laughs in loli and shota*.

Strikerman said:
if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, let's tag cub to be safe.

*creates implication duck -> cub*

Watsit said:
We don't apply dwarfism to cubs normally, do we?

No but this is beyond the point tbh, in my opinion dwarfism should only be valid if the character in question had post-pubescent features while still being short in statute, but this greatly varies from species to species, so it kinda needs more than 1 character of the same ~general species on the picture because art style is one hell of a drug. And again, if we weren't comparing to characters in pictures, we would be walking in the lore territory, and good luck with that hidden knowledge about a totally-made-up-species-that-is-super-specific that your average user won't know about.

linker said:
None of the characters are short because of dwarfism, the 2 ferals would be average size for a owl but looks small being with a anthro character.

I'm not that owl-savvy, and I'm not gonna lie, they would receive an anthro tag from me. While at it, I don't SEE why the post has a female tag on it, the brown character that has a visible crotch should warrant a featureless crotch tag, again, I believe all birds got a cloaca, which explains the lack of a penis/ballsack as you claim they're feral, but the artist also made no effort of drawing something in their crotch. They also don't have breasts, as I don't think feral birds got that either.
So yeah, the female tags should be changed to ambiguous, and I would do it if birds concerned me.

Wolfmanfur said:
I think they are both midgets

btw, because I was looking into dwarfism thanks to this thread, I saw it being said that the term "midget" is derogatory, something to do with it's etymology iirc, I didn't look into it as I never really use it, but perhaps you should and maybe avoid using it entirely

linker said:
it just seems really confusing on why that one in particular was locked.

I don't think it's confusing, as the blacklist is a thing. Plus, from thumbnails, someone looking for cub could think it's a cub, again, there's more than one character, think in an abstract way, and to me, it feels like you would remove them if given the chance.

since the tags are seemingly contradictory, this was quite possibly a mistake. I think NMNY meant to lock +cub -dwarfism, either that or the inverse.
although to me they just look like normal-sized ferals.

rainercat said:
I don't think it's confusing, as the blacklist is a thing. Plus, from thumbnails, someone looking for cub could think it's a cub, again, there's more than one character, think in an abstract way, and to me, it feels like you would remove them if given the chance.

Actually you might be on to something, Dwarfs in fiction are often depicted as being Miners

darryus said:
since the tags are seemingly contradictory, this was quite possibly a mistake. I think NMNY meant to lock +cub -dwarfism, either that or the inverse.
although to me they just look like normal-sized ferals.

From the response I received from NMNY, cub and young were intended to be locked. There was no mention of dwarfism in NMNYs response, but I think it was intentional. I'll ask NMNY though to be sure.

Contrary to what others have said though, I don't believe cub and dwarfism are contradictory. If I saw the tag on the post I wouldn't remove it (but I also wouldn't have thought to add it either). I could see it being ambiguous enough to have both. It doesn't matter to me if it stays or goes.

Midgets aren't dwarfs. A midget is normally proportioned despite their abnormally small size. A dwarf has a normal or nearly normal torso for their size, but their limbs are short, thick, and incorrectly proportioned; some might call them malformed. (As an aside, Pygmies are neither midgets or dwarfs and are thus neither malformed nor abnormal. They're just a race of normal short humans.) Basically, just because a character is short doesn't mean they're a dwarf.

A dwarf is born a dwarf, but their parents are not necessarily dwarfs and their children aren't likely to be dwarfs, either. A midget was born more or less normal, but just don't grow up as other people do, and their parents or children probably won't be midgets either. (On the other hand, a Pygmy's parents were Pygmies and their children will be too if there's no genetic intermixing with non-Pygmy humans. But then, Pygmies are normal people.)

Considering the post in question, I don't think dwarfism really applies, since they don't really look like they have abnormally "deformed" limbs compared to a regular owl much less an owl anthro. Although, considering many art styles, it could be difficult to tell a dwarf from a non-dwarf.

The solution is very simple, I forgot the - in front of it.

kyiiel said:

Contrary to what others have said though, I don't believe cub and dwarfism are contradictory. If I saw the tag on the post I wouldn't remove it (but I also wouldn't have thought to add it either). I could see it being ambiguous enough to have both. It doesn't matter to me if it stays or goes.

You have a point about it not being contradictory, a cub could also have dwarfism. I still don't think that tag would apply here so I wouldent add it myself. That being said I have to wonder why it would need to be locked with -dwarfism in the first place? There was no "tag war" over that, a cub in theory could have it. And from the looks of it no one ever mentioned dwarfism in any report.

linker said:
https://e621.net/post_versions?search%5Bpost_id%5D=3999013
I know there's no point in arguing over a post getting tagged and locked as cub/young

I actually don't know why this is the case. FurAffinity just had MASSIVE drama over that fact, so it's clearly a very controversial position to take that "things that look young must be young."

Just like the topic. Dwarfism seems to, by definition, refer to something that is unusually smaller than its traditional form. If something is small by default, it's not a dwarf to be it's normal size. That's just how things are for whatever it is. If it's young, it's not a dwarf, it's just young for what it is. We don't call human babies/children to be dwarves just because they haven't grown to their full height yet. They're growing. It seems absurd to call small things dwarfism just because they're smaller than some arbitrary "general standard."

And similar to your futile subject, things that look like a cub that just happen to be normal proportions for their species being called a cub is absurd, as if certain species of creatures are incapable of aging or growing up. I know this website is supposed to be "tag what you see," but I assumed it meant "tag what is," not "tag what you think it is." Are keywords objective or subjective?