Topic: Tag Implication: allosaurus -> dinosaur

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

Going to semi-derail this thread for some real dino talk.

The main bullet points here should imply dinosaur, with the child tags implying the parent tags

This series of articles is actually a fun read and goes into the main types of dinos. It's where I got all of this information. Would be nice if we could get some branches established (theropod, dromaeosaur, hadrosaur, etc) off the dinosaur tree for accurate tagging. Then dino nerds can find everything they're looking for!

I spent more time on this post than I care to admit.

Updated by anonymous

After starting some of Kida's suggestions, I'm thinking that implying most of these straight to dinosaur might be a lot simpler to do. I also think the ones that only have 1 or 2 posts aren't really worth bothering over.

What does everyone think about this?

Updated by anonymous

Whew, alright. I've made the following changes:

And here is Kida's tag tree with annotations:

(any ones with no comment were too small for me to want to bother with)

Updated by anonymous

Looks good! I think we just need a theropod -> dinosaur implication to tie everything up.

Updated by anonymous

engageforth said:
Looks good! I think we just need a theropod -> dinosaur implication to tie everything up.

:X

Approved

Updated by anonymous

Genjar

Former Staff

Noticed that some users have been complaining about the spinosaurus -> allosaur implication.

I'm no expert on dinosaurs, but recent research seems to place them in their own Spinosauridae family, instead of Allosauridae. That puts it in the same family as baryonyx, which is implicated directly to theropod. So maybe the spinosaurus implication should be moved there too?

The other alternative would be to add a new tag for the family:

Updated by anonymous

Genjar said:
Noticed that some users have been complaining about the spinosaurus -> allosaur implication.

I'm no expert on dinosaurs, but recent research seems to place them in their own Spinosauridae family, instead of Allosauridae. That puts it in the same family as baryonyx, which is implicated directly to theropod. So maybe the spinosaurus implication should be moved there too?

The other alternative would be to add a new tag for the family:

Just noticed this as I attempted my first upload. Spinosaurus and Allosaurus are very different. They didn't even live in the same time period.

Updated by anonymous

  • 1