Thread:Ghelæ/@comment-32744161-20180526135800/@comment-47205-20180527081948

Normally, "I created it so it's my choice" is an absolute rule on the wiki, as long as no rules are broken in the process. So if you want to make your own in-fiction taxonomy for your creatures, not only do I think that would be a great thing to do, I'd also have no right to tell you not to do it. But the taxonomy project isn't your own personal fiction; it's a collaborative effort that has everything to do with connections between different people's creations. You can make a taxon, but you do not own it.

Once again, you're using a definition - "look[s] like thick, purple goo with additional parts" - that's far too vague to be a family definition, and furthermore you're practically using it as a genus definition. This is what the issue is. Twice you've asserted that I hold a double standard, where I let other people do whatever they like with taxonomy while being overly controlling against you ("only OK when my creatures alone are affected", "lots of other people make genera for creatures that are related"), and in both cases you've failed to back up these accusations with evidence. I can't say I'm particularly swayed by your attempts to appear mistreated.

As Dinoman972 says, we could make this a higher-rank taxon. Requiring purple colouration is needlessly restrictive if there are creatures highly similar in morphology but differing only by skin pigment, and as far as I can tell "looks like thick goo" is being used to mean little more than "has a body". But I'm sure we can work with the idea. As I said in one edit summary, you might be able to argue in favour of invertebrate taxa that somewhat resemble real taxa, allowing your bird and dragon to avoid going into Chordata.