Ok so I was thinking about a tag that can bring out every picture that has female animals that can lay eggs.

Oviparous, means "An animal that lays eggs".

Well there's no such tag, there's tag:mammal.

Second reason: This would easily make the search tool show every female that is a bird, or a snake, fishes, etc. that can lay eggs. - The one tag will bring all of these type of pictures up at once.

Just a Suggestion.

This seems to be a very broad tag, but I've also always seen mammal in the same light.

I don't see why not.

I take it monotremes would be included here, since they lay eggs, even though they are mammals.

You didn't mention insects, but they also lay eggs.

What about Pokemon, who all lay eggs, despite many being based on non-egg-laying mammals?

Clawdragons said:
I take it monotremes would be included here, since they lay eggs, even though they are mammals.

You didn't mention insects, but they also lay eggs.

What about Pokemon, who all lay eggs, despite many being based on non-egg-laying mammals?

Bj007pro said:
Second reason: This would easily make the search tool show every female that is a bird, or a snake, fishes, ETC. that can lay eggs. - The one tag will bring all of these type of pictures up at once.

Just a Suggestion.

Define etc.: "etc. et cetera. and others; and so forth; and so on (used to indicate that more of the same sort or class might have been mentioned, but for brevity have been omitted): "He had dogs, cats, guinea pigs, frogs, et cetera, as pets.""

_________

Please read before trying to be a smartass.

theres no reason for a tag like this. its way too board and vague to be actually useful.

Bad idea.
Oviparous isn't something that can be tagged by twys. Except for images already covered by oviposition, etc.

For instance, you can't assume that anthro scalies are oviparous. Especially if they have breasts, navels, and other mammalian features. Not all scalies are oviparous even in real life: about 30% of snakes give live birth.

As for the mammal tag, the other species groups already exist: avian, insect, etc.

And it wouldn't be a species tag. Egg-laying is a characteristic, not a species.

Bj007pro said:
Define etc.: "etc. et cetera. and others; and so forth; and so on (used to indicate that more of the same sort or class might have been mentioned, but for brevity have been omitted): "He had dogs, cats, guinea pigs, frogs, et cetera, as pets.""

_________

Please read before trying to be a smartass.

I'm not trying to be snarky. I'm expanding on your list, with the first two, with monotremes and insects, because the first is the group which demonstrates that this tag and mammal are not mutually exclusive, and the second is a major group I felt deserved to be remembered for anyone else thinking about the value of this tag.

The Pokemon one was a serious question. Do you think Pokemon should be included in this tag? It seems to me that this really confounds the tag.

If Pokemon are included, should Pokemon implicate oviparous? There are some Pokemon which do not breed naturally but can produce eggs with ditto (the Magnemite line, as an example). There are some Pokemon which cannot breed at all in canon (Most legendaries). Even with that said, sometimes Pokemon which cannot breed are depicted as laying eggs, and sometimes Pokemon are depicted giving live birth.

Including Pokemon really complicates this tag. Hence why I asked if you thought they should be included.

Furthermore, there is sometimes a distinction made between oviparous and ovuliparous, with the former in this distinction relating to egg-laying species with internal fertilization and the latter referring to external fertilization (thus drawing a distinction between, say, reptiles and fish). Would it be useful to make a distinction like that?

Finally, even among species which you might think would clearly be oviparous, there are confounding issues. There are ovoviviparous snakes, for instance, which have live births (though this is distinct from vivipary). Some very well known species, in fact, such as boas, vipers, and garter snakes.

These are not simple issues, and I don't really appreciate you assuming I am just trying to be a smart alec.

Overall, I think that this tag has too many issues, actually. There are too many issues that prevent implications from working in many cases, so it would need to be manually tagged. The term has no taxonomic significance, unlike mammal does. It is even broader than mammal is, as well, and would generally not result in useful search results.

I also give this a -1. Especially for the reason that in furry art and with anthros/humanoids it's not uncommon to have a depiction of live birth even for a normally egg-laying species.

These would therefore have to be individually tagged and would only be accurate if there were evidence of egg-laying nature somewhere in the image. And we already have oviposition for that.

In the end, I think it's just not a useful enough tag to make up for all the potential headaches of attempting to implement it.

-1. There isn't much I could safely implicate to this, and most of the people who would care enough to seek it would be better off using oviposition and related tags to find them anyways.

Looks like some users insist on tagging it anyway. Should be invalidated?

vvv I was referring to the new wiki entry, which encourages using the tag.

Genjar said:
Looks like some users insist on tagging it anyway. Should be invalidated?

Not me, you can see who's doing it even as a casual user/member.
By going to the last post who got the tag, and then under 'Options' (Somewhere there), you can see the history tags for that post, and by the latest person.

Genjar said:
Looks like some users insist on tagging it anyway. Should be invalidated?

+1 to this

parasprite said:
+1 to this

Why do you need to "+1" to this and "-1" to that? - You're an Admin, just DO IT!! :P

Bj007pro said:
Why do you need to "+1" to this and "-1" to that? - You're an Admin, just DO IT!! :P

It's called letting the people voice their opinions.

Bj007pro said:
Why do you need to "+1" to this and "-1" to that? - You're an Admin, just DO IT!! :P

Inviting opinion provides opportunity for people to make a potential argument for why a tag should be created, be allowed to stick around...or why it should go. If enough people wanted a tag like this it could be worth the hassle of keeping. As it is though:

+1 for invalidation

Wodahseht said:
Inviting opinion provides opportunity for people to make a potential argument for why a tag should be created, be allowed to stick around...or why it should go. If enough people wanted a tag like this it could be worth the hassle of keeping. As it is though:

+1 for invalidation

Meh, whatever.

I was only suggesting an idea and people declined it.

So...

+1 for invalidation

Approved invalidation

parasprite said:
Approved invalidation

So is asking for the thread to be locked a thing, or..?

Bj007pro said:
So is asking for the thread to be locked a thing, or..?

We generally only lock posts when they become wildly off-topic, pointless, or are causing drama. There's always a chance that someone with new ideas or corrections will want to revive the topic.

After all, who knows what tagging will look like 2 years from now. :P

parasprite said:
We generally only lock posts when they become wildly off-topic, pointless, or are causing drama. There's always a chance that someone with new ideas or corrections will want to revive the topic.

After all, who knows what tagging will look like 2 years from now. :P

But this thread has become pointless because the on-topic bit has been settled.

Is this site really going to upgrade that much on that time? :P

Bj007pro said:
But this thread has become pointless because the on-topic bit has been settled.

Settled or not there isn't really a reason to lock it.

Bj007pro said:
Is this site really going to upgrade that much on that time? :P

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

parasprite said:
Settled or not there isn't really a reason to lock it.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Things work interesting around here...¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Bj007pro said:
Things work interesting around here...¯\_(ツ)_/¯

¯|_(ツ)_/¯