Topic: [REJECTED] Tag implication: non-mammal_anus -> anus

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

Wait, is there a point to having such a tag? Are non-mammal anuses so rare in real life? Guess I never looked into it.

Previously requested in now-hidden topic #36394, where there was discussion if non-mammal_anus should be a valid tag (there are non-mammals that have anuses, unlike non-mammal_breasts, making it not really any different than mammal anuses). That implication request was then deleted and followed up with an alias request in the also now-hidden topic #36397.

Can we please put a moratorium on users being able to hide entire threads that have discussions in them?

Why not make it an alias? It's not clear that anuses are exclusive to mammals, and even if they are I'm not sure cloacas and anuses can be reliably visually distinguished.

Updated

watsit said:
They can be well enough, or else the cloaca tags wouldn't exist.

Not necessarily. For the cloaca tag to exist, it's only necessary to be able to tell something is a cloaca and not an anus; for non-mammal_anus, you have to be able to tell it's an anus and not a cloaca. Different things.

An anus is an anus. no matter whatus. I think an alias would be better. They're not exclusive to mammals or chordates (animals with spinal cords) for that matter.

vulpes_artifex said:
Not necessarily. For the cloaca tag to exist, it's only necessary to be able to tell something is a cloaca and not an anus; for non-mammal_anus, you have to be able to tell it's an anus and not a cloaca. Different things.

This doesn't change how and when you tag cloaca or anus. You already tag cloaca or anus on non-mammals depending on how it appears. This would only mean that when you would already tag anus on a non-mammal, you would tag non-mammal_anus.

But as I said, I don't think non-mammals lack anuses like they lack breasts, so a tag like non-mammal_anus wouldn't serve the same purpose as non-mammal_breasts.