The tag implication #47402 digimon_(species) -> digital_creature has been rejected.

Reason: Digimon are digital creatures.

EDIT: The tag implication digimon_(species) -> digital_creature (forum #349586) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

That entire tag family seems... dubious at best. The average observer, barren of context, is not going to know an otherwise biological-appearing creature from a "realised" digital organism as happens with digimon in much the same way the average observer won't know a characters is a machine if they otherwise have an outwardly living, biological appearance. This would also likely cause mistagging with any cosplay and would not account for the fully-biological Kemonogami of Survive which, while still Digimon, are not Digital.

Digimon don't generally look like digital creatures. They often look like normal creatures, similar to pokemon, without signs of being a digital construct. Compare
post #3335387 post #3219028
to
post #3691948 post #3690711

watsit said:
Digimon don't generally look like digital creatures. They often look like normal creatures, similar to pokemon, without signs of being a digital construct. Compare
post #3335387 post #3219028
to
post #3691948 post #3690711

Now that you mention it, (most) posts with the digimon_(species) digital_creature tags are either digimon showing their digital meshes or have another non-digimon clearly-digital being. So I guess it’ll be wrong to imply the tag, as digimon are only digital creatures lore-wise.

(Should porygon imply digital_creature tho?)

Also, should we remove the digital_creature tag on nicole_the_lynx posts? Excluding posts where her digital nature is visible ofc.

So many Nicole posts having the tag was one of the main reasons why I made this thread

ー１：I thought a little ... But this implication is Not good.
It's because we have a policy of TWYS ( Tag what you see, Select tags each time based on what they look like, Do Not tag what you know ).

Activating this imply means ALL 100% digimon_(species) have the appearance of digital_creature.
But as others said already, I too don't think "The fact that they are Digimon" and "What their bodies are made of" absolutely always determine "What they look like."
The same issue exists around pokemon_(species) and porygon.

～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～
In the first place, What would be the explanation for digital_creature？
glitch_pokémon / glitch_creature post #3675079 ｜ artificial_intelligence, @Watsit mentioned post #3335387
They're obvious.　I can see the signs by noises and holograms, i.e. digital technology, that they are digital constructs.

insulindianphasmid said:
Also, should we remove the digital_creature tag on nicole_the_lynx posts? Excluding posts where her digital nature is visible ofc.
So many Nicole posts having the tag was one of the main reasons why I made this thread

The same can be said for computer_virus_(species).
Yeah, I think digital_creature tag should be removed from many of those posts, too.

The tag implication digimon_(species) -> digital_creature (forum #349586) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.