I noticed that somebody has been adding the tag non-mammal_breasts to wickerbeast posts: non-mammal_breasts wickerbeast

The wiki page says "Humanoid breasts on any non-mammalian species that does not, in real life, produce milk." (emphasis mine)

Wickerbeasts are a made-up fictional species, so they don't fit into the real life tree of life. They're not mammals, but maybe they could be considered mammals, so I don't know if non-mammal_breasts is applicable here.

Avalis are avian so non-mammal_breasts on avalis with breasts makes more sense there, but wickerbeasts are less clear. I figured I'd open this forum thread to ask.

At the very least, I think it would rely on the character being taggable as scalie, avian, marine, etc... definitively non-mammal-looking. I'd agree that wickerbeast doesn't look non-mammal enough to be tagged as such, so wouldn't consider non-mammal_breasts to be applicable, at least from a sampling of images I glanced at.

Off topic: I'd definitely support altering the tag to support obvious non-mammals, or hybrids which may contain mammalian features, but obviously have non-mammalian breasts (ex: furry body but scaly breasts).

On topic: even if the above was the case, the images I've seen in wickerbeast look mammalian (have fur, no obvious scales/feathers in the breast area), so the tag wouldn't apply. I could see how someone looking at them with a quick glance wouldn't see the fur though. A lot of the tagged posts are very subtle (ex, fur tufts only at the legs, otherwise smooth textured body, but with a maw shape that would typically be on a reptile), so I could see someone tagging it that way in good faith.