This hasn't actually been submitted yet, as the site STILL will not allow you to make a tag alias.

Do we really need to be this specific with a tag when you can easily get the same result from breasts -mammal?

In addition, shouldn't mammalian species implicate mammal? Avian species implicate avian, and reptilian species implicate reptile, so for the sake of proper searching and tagging it would make sense to have them implicate mammal.

I've found it more than useful.
As I've said before: I only like breasts on mammals. Personal preference.

So I've blacklisted that tag. And I dunno what I could replace it with if it got aliased.

corgi_bread said:
This hasn't actually been submitted yet, as the site STILL will not allow you to make a tag alias.

Do we really need to be this specific with a tag when you easily get the same result from breasts -mammal?

In addition, shouldn't mammalian species implicate mammal? Avian species implicate avian, and reptilian species implicate reptile, so for the sake of proper searching and tagging it would make sense to have them implicate mammal.

I'm all for the avian, reptile and mammal tags, but some would consider this too broad. If one wants to be able to search properly, using the scientific method should be encouraged, which means 'overly' broad tags like that should exist. I'm sure some would blacklist mammals, avians, reptiles or (the already broadly used tag) amphibian, or search it because it's their preference. The same goes for other (super)tags like hair, fur and skin.

To answer the main question of the topic: no, it should not be aliased unless tags like mammal are being used widely, which isn't the situation at the moment.