Just found a post where another user makes a valid point.
comment #8350092
Incubus, incubi, and succubi all get replaced when used as a tag with demon
Succubus however has its own tag and does not imply demon.

Incubus and succubus are subsets of a type of demon, male and female versions respectively. They should not be replaced with the generic demon species tag but instead add the demon tag as a secondary when tagging them.

We don't normally tag male and female versions of a species (stallion and mare are aliased to horse, for example). If incubus and succubus are the same thing, just the male and female variant respectively, we shouldn't have two separate tags. Especially for creatures that can change their apparent sex on a whim, or be a mix of sexes/intersex, where it's not clear if they're an incubus or a succubus. And given how often incubus/succubus gets tagged for a horned humanoid or anthro or something that merely likes sex (or simply some statement somewhere that a character is an incubus/succubus, despite being indistinguishable from any other human/humanoid/anthro/feral), and not some depiction of what an incubus/succubus really is, I think it's best to keep them aliased away.

All variants on succubus have been aliased but not succubus itself. If it's a valid tag on its own shouldn't the variant be aliased to it instead, and if it isn't, shouldn't it be aliased away like the rest

Oh the aliases are by ImpidiDinkaDoo
That does call into question it's validity. Also the previous two attempts to alias it away have failed: topic #28766 topic #35149
Huh topic #28994 had quite a bit of support though (I don't see the purpose of moving it to lore when species is already a lore category)

snpthecat said:
(I don't see the purpose of moving it to lore when species is already a lore category)

It isn't, really. It still depends on some visual indication of being the thing claimed (I can't take a drawing of a horse, say it's a cat, and tag it siamese instead of draft_horse). And if someone makes a species that is completely indistinguishable from what we already have a tag for, there's not really a point to having two tags for something that looks identical, and one tag isn't always tagged because of external info.

snpthecat said:
All variants on succubus have been aliased but not succubus itself. If it's a valid tag on its own shouldn't the variant be aliased to it instead, and if it isn't, shouldn't it be aliased away like the rest

Oh the aliases are by ImpidiDinkaDoo
That does call into question it's validity. Also the previous two attempts to alias it away have failed: topic #28766 topic #35149
Huh topic #28994 had quite a bit of support though (I don't see the purpose of moving it to lore when species is already a lore category)

succubus actually was aliased along with the rest of the gendered terms, for some reason Millcore randomly deleted the alias in December of 2020

watsit said:
It isn't, really. It still depends on some visual indication of being the thing claimed (I can't take a drawing of a horse, say it's a cat, and tag it siamese instead of draft_horse). And if someone makes a species that is completely indistinguishable from what we already have a tag for, there's not really a point to having two tags for something that looks identical, and one tag isn't always tagged because of external info.

Same goes for the lore category no? You can't tag a post as *_(lore) if it is zero_pictured and does not contain any characters, no matter what the artist says. You also can't make a lore tag for any arbitrary gender or familial relation either.

snpthecat said:
You can't tag a post as *_(lore) if it is zero_pictured and does not contain any characters, no matter what the artist says. You also can't make a lore tag for any arbitrary gender or familial relation either.

I don't think that's strictly true. If a picture contains what looks like a normal inanimate object that the artist says is a character, and that character is male, then for TWYS purposes it's zero_pictured since it looks like an inanimate object with no characters, but could be tagged male_(lore) since TWYK and artist lore says so. Presuming the image isn't deleted for being irrelevant, anyway, and is allowable for some other reason (cover page, part of a series, etc). In either case, if a post has a female, I can tag it male_(lore) if that's what the artist says the character is meant to be. But if a post has an elephant, I can't tag it snake if that's what the artist says the character is meant to be.

We can't make lore tags period. They have to be created by an admin, who will curate what lore tags to allow and what not to allow. Allowing people to create new tags for anything based on a creator's whim when there's no TWYS element to it (aside from character names) would be an unmanageable nightmare. But otherwise well-defined species can be tagged by normal users for characters that fit the species. felkin didn't need permission to be created, someone came up with the idea for and designed the species, and characters fitting that visual definition could be tagged as it. In contrast, someone tried to create a mimiff species tag, which was poorly defined and could apply to whatever the creator wanted it to regardless of what the character actually looked like, and it was subsequently invalidated for being too vague and loosely applicable.