So the tag avian_penis gets used when an avian has a penis. Yes, that sounds very obvious and like the opposite of a problem. But the thing is- most birds do not have penises. Most of the images tagged with avian_penis are not ducks, ostriches, or vasa parrots. The penises depicted aren't modeled after those birds' either, but are just generic tapering penises.

Fantasy and speculative penises are not tagged. There's no dinosaur_penis or dragon_penis since we don't have anything to refer to for what it looks like.

My question is if this tag, which is continuously misused, should exist at all? Would it be better to only use tags for the exceptions like duck_penis or ostrich_penis?

regsmutt said:
Would it be better to only use tags for the exceptions like duck_penis or ostrich_penis?

I'd say yes. Aside from the fact that most avians don't have penises, this would be about as useful as a mammal_penis or scalie_penis or marine_penis tag. There isn't anything common to the penises under the given group, they're about as diverse within the group as without, and is just meaning mammal+penis, avian+penis, etc.

Not sure what's the original purpose of the tag. Might even have started as something similar to non-mammal_breasts — tagging bird characters with penises because they usually don't have one.

But if so, the name needs work. Shouldn't be under <type>_penis, that confuses things too much.

it would be in the context of the post that any bird character has a penis because their penises are ambiguous to the tagger, usually just a cloaca/tapering (i've seen a post of a parrot have visible penis but objectively doesn't have in reality).
the penis of the animal tag wise should only go as far as family or suborder at least. i was originally about to make a bur alias for these but i've lost tabs, so here it goes.

snake-girl said:
the penis of the animal tag wise should only go as far as family or suborder at least

I'd say it should only be for when there's commonality in the shape or form of the penis. canine_penis isn't for canine+penis, but the particular shape and form common to canine penises, for instance. Even if there's a (non-canine) canid or other animal with the same type of penis, it would still be tagged canine_penis. If there's notable diversity and little commonality in the penises of some group of animals, they shouldn't be under the same tag even if the animals are part of the same family or clade or whatever taxonomic group.

The bulk update request #7492 is active.

create alias avian_penis (1) -> penis (1437149)

Reason: This isn't really a coherent tag. Avian penises are rare and belong to specific groups and do not share a universal look- an ostrich_penis does not resemble a duck_penis. An eagle with a generic tapering_penis is not based on a real avian penis.

EDIT: The bulk update request #7492 (forum #400112) has been approved by @slyroon.

I believe the point of the tag is similar to non-mammal_breasts, not to be any sort of indicator of any kind of potential avian penis.

Which begs the question, do we want to keep this - maybe alias to a better name. birds_with_dicks. Not a serious suggestion, since I couldn't think of one.

Could just collect them into pool for later use, before aliasing it away.

An issue with that is, non-mammal_breasts is a tag because breasts are a unique feature of mammals, so any depiction of a non-mammal with them is an abnormal trait. But in contrast, some avians do have penises, so a duck with a penis isn't an abnormal trait, while something else like a pigeon with a penis would be abnormal. That in turn creates confusion, whether such a tag should apply to any/every avian or just those that don't have a penis naturally, which further raises the question of fictional species (would a quaquaval with a penis be abnormal? would it depend on the kind of penis? ).

The bulk update request #7496 is pending approval.

create alias reptile_penis (217) -> penis (1437149) # duplicate of has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through BUR
create alias scalie_penis (0) -> penis (1437149)
create alias bird_penis (8) -> penis (1437149)
create alias mammal_penis (0) -> penis (1437149)

Reason: those as well.

genjar said:
Which begs the question, do we want to keep this - maybe alias to a better name. birds_with_dicks. Not a serious suggestion, since I couldn't think of one.

Could just collect them into pool for later use, before aliasing it away.

They should get collected into a pool since a lot of them are also incorrectly tagged animal_penis or anatomically_correct. Also some with identifiable duck or ostrich penises are lacking those tags.

Speaking of duck_penis- the trait is shared with other waterfowl. They do vary in length, thickness, and corkscrew-ness but are still similar. Would aliasing duck_penis to waterfowl_penis to cover stuff like post #3838264 be appropriate?

The bulk update request #7492 (forum #400112) has been approved by @slyroon.

This is an incorrect decision, as aligators, ostriches and other relative species all have extremely unique appendages, getting rid of the cloud tag doesnt help here

demesejha said:
This is an incorrect decision, as aligators, ostriches and other relative species all have extremely unique appendages, getting rid of the cloud tag doesnt help here

That's why it's gotten rid of, because they're more unique and don't share visual commonality with relative species. The tag would just have a collection of different penises without visible consistency (and with the way it was being used, would also include generic tapering penises on avians, even if said avian doesn't have a penis, or one that looks like that, in real life).