Hello! I was just browsing and noticed a post with a Sparklefur, and as per usual when casually browsing, i checked to see if the post had the Sparklefur tag, which i didn't see at first since i was specifically checking the Species tag section, but when i clicked edit and typed in Sparklefur, i noticed that it was actually already added, and then i realised that the reason for why i didn't see it at first was because it isn't marked as a species tag, and is marked as a general tag type, which really confused me. Which is why i'm posting this, I'm wondering, shouldn't the Sparklefur tag type be Species?
Topic: Shouldn't the Sparklefur tag type be Species?
Posted under Tag/Wiki Projects and Questions
I don't see any reason why it should be a species tag. It describes a certain character design archetype. If you look at the wiki page for sparklefur you'll see that all of the example images depict different species of animal.
I think sparklefur is closer to the name of an aesthetic than to the name of a species. But maybe the common sparkledog could be considered a separate species? Although sparkledog seems to be the same dogs, just within a certain theme
notevilfox said:
I think sparklefur is closer to the name of an aesthetic than to the name of a species. But maybe the common sparkledog could be considered a separate species? Although sparkledog seems to be the same dogs, just within a certain theme
sparkledog was aliased away nearly 2 years ago (topic #44457) because all of the sparkle<species> tags describe the same thing, and we don't need combined tags like that