The tag implication #57646 teacup_gryphon -> gryphon is pending approval.

Reason: Teacup gryphons are gryphons.

a what?

What is a teacup gryphon, and how does it differ from a normal gryphon? There's no wiki to explain the distinction. If it's just a tag for a small or chibi gryphon, I don't think we need tags for small/chibi individual species. Perhaps this should be an alias?

from following what's already been posted on e6, it seems that they're a closed species created by Mangobird.

https://www.furaffinity.net/gallery/excitedcargoyle/folder/1081890/Teacups/
https://www.furaffinity.net/user/mangobird/

I added a wiki page to clarify that they are a closed gryphon species.

The bulk update request #7096 is pending approval.

create alias teacup_gryphon (119) -> gryphon (22468) # duplicate of has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through bur

Reason: Meta-knowledge that it's one guy's closed species isn't TWYS. Species+artstyle doesn't work because someone could draw them in another artstyle. Any anthro gryphon drawn by anyone might have some or all of the listed features. It's one thing if an original species is visually distinct but IMO this one isn't a valid tag.

arrow189 said:
The bulk update request #7096 is pending approval.

create alias teacup_gryphon (119) -> gryphon (22468) # duplicate of has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through bur

Reason: Meta-knowledge that it's one guy's closed species isn't TWYS. Species+artstyle doesn't work because someone could draw them in another artstyle. Any anthro gryphon drawn by anyone might have some or all of the listed features. It's one thing if an original species is visually distinct but IMO this one isn't a valid tag.

fictional species have very lose TWYS standards.

in my opinion: if we theoretically held a blind test, if a user familiar with said fictional species was able to pick out instances of said species vs. characters of other similar-looking species with a fair amount of consistency then the tag is valid.

I don't really like the idea of aliasing a fictional species to a real one, the creator of the species can technically redesign it at any point to no longer look like the real thing.

sipothac said:
in my opinion: if we theoretically held a blind test, if a user familiar with said fictional species was able to pick out instances of said species vs. characters of other similar-looking species with a fair amount of consistency then the tag is valid.

Eh, that seems like too low a bar, to me. Someone familiar with a species, particularly a closed one with few artists allowed to draw them do so similarly, is more likely to identify it with any gryphon in a similar style. Like how readily someone will say a character doesn't look young because they're familiar with the source material saying they're older, rather than making an determination from an objective look.

IMO, it should be if someone unfamiliar with the species can identify them as being different from the norm in a consistent and unique way, otherwise anyone can claim their gryphon is a teacup gryphon regardless of what it looks like, making the tag rather pointless. As it is, I can't say what separates these "teacup gryphons" from normal gryphons in a way that other people, unfamiliar with the species, wouldn't make "naturally". They just look like chibi/childlike gryphons to me.

Also the fact that the species is supposedly "closed", with the creator being (C)DNP (and the second-most significant artist being DNP), makes me think the tag would have little use here anyway, outside of people drawing it without permission to thumb their nose at the idea of a "closed species".

faucet said:
I don't really like the idea of aliasing a fictional species to a real one, the creator of the species can technically redesign it at any point to no longer look like the real thing.

Yeah, that is a good point.

faucet said:
I don't really like the idea of aliasing a fictional species to a real one, the creator of the species can technically redesign it at any point to no longer look like the real thing.

With a name like "teacup gryphon", I really don't foresee it being a problem (even if it were to be a problem, it would be one for an implication too, not just an alias). It's not like gryphons are real, there's a lot of leeway with how they can be portrayed, nor is it a common occurrence for a species to be so heavily redesigned after years of use by multiple artists already. In the unlikely event it does happen, it can be dealt with then, IMO.