"biblically accurate angels" tag implications

biblically accurate angels should imply angel

Also i think both tags should be classified as species too, thoughts?

I’m not sure about this one. I guess it depends if people expect “angel” to refer to stereotypical “wings, halo, maybe a toga” type angels or if that doesn’t matter. On the other hand, one could just exclude “biblically accurate angels” from the search.

On the third hand, a few pics tagged with it might be more “biblically accurate angel design inspired” and not really meant to be an angel. On the fourth hand, that might not matter for categorizing purposes.

IDK ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Tangentially related: angels alias-> angel
angelestia - limit to “angel bunny in a celestia costume”, or also include “princess celestia is a literal angel”?

When you said “biblically accurate” I assumed you meant nightmare monstrosities with a billion eyes.

@Ciaran
yes that is the one i mean X)

@icicle wicicle 1517
Well, carry on then!

@Ciaran
ok XD

so are these implications ok then?

Since the biblically accurate angels are still angels

I made BIA imply angel, aliased angels > angel, and made angel a species tag since angel pony already was one.

I’m not entirely sure on making BIA a species too but could be persuaded either way.

@cheezedoodle
I think it should be a species tag since BIA angels are a certain type if angel.

@icicle wicicle 1517
Ehhh, IMO it’s more akin to hoers vs. pony

And ironically enough, it’s as much or even more usefully used here on things that aren’t “accurate”, anyway - just inspired.

What about cherub, cherubim, ophanim, or tangentially, angels (evangelion)?

Wait a minute, every pokemon type is a species?

ugh.

@cheezedoodle
Yes