Implicating mammoth → elephant
Link to implication

Reason:

they are elephants, enough said. lots of mammoth pics fail to have an elephant tag too, so it'd be super useful imho...

Related prehistoric animal implications:

• andrewsarchus → mammal - an ancient species of mammal
• dinosaur humanoid → reptile humanoid
• dunkleosteus → fish - an ancient species of fish
• feathered_dinosaur → dinosaur
• ground sloth → sloth
• pterosaur → pteranodon

Related aliases:

• allosaur → allosaurus
• ankylosaur → ankylosaurus
• apatosaur → apatosaurus
• dilophosaur → dilophosaurus
• dromaeosaur → dromaeosaurus
• dromeasaurus → dromaeosaurus
• hadrosaur → hadrosaurus
• parasaur → parasaurolophus
• stegosaur → stegosaurus
• styracosaur → styracosaurus

Related tag suggestion:

• A tag for ceratopsid dinosuars. Like theropods and sauropods, there are high numbers of ceratopsid dinosaur content. I think having a catch all term for this general similar species group.

I have some caveats:

I) 'elephant' is mostly used referring to the subfamily elephantinae (which encompasses the currently live species), so such implication maybe wouldn't be so efficient.
Sometime ago was suggested implicating both 'elephant' and 'mammoth' to 'elephantidae'_empty (forum #224237 and forum #224238, respectively). I found the idea itself interesting, but argued that the creation of such tag (elephantidae) should be discussed previously rather than simply start requesting implications for it.

II) 'sloth' is a quite ambiguous term, actually a disambiguation was suggested at forum #234449 (and you were there).

III) Some of that aliases suggestions probably are unnecessary due to lack of usage; more specifically:

• ankylosaur → ankylosaurus
• dromeasaurus → dromaeosaurus
• parasaur → parasaurolophus
• stegosaur → stegosaurus
• styracosaur → styracosaurus

IV) 'dilophosaur' already is aliased to dilophosaurus.

I will give a +1 to anything else, including the creation of the 'ceratopsid' tag.

I suggest also Implicating:

• dinosaur → reptile.
• allosaurus → theropod.
• hadrosaurus → dinosaur.
• quetzalcoatlus → pteranodon.¹

¹ Late additions (26/VI/2017).

O16 said:
I have some caveats:

I) 'elephant' is mostly used referring to the subfamily elephantinae (which encompasses the currently live species), so such implication maybe wouldn't be so efficient.
Sometime ago was suggested implicating both 'elephant' and 'mammoth' to 'elephantidae'_empty (forum #224237 and forum #224238, respectively). I found the idea itself interesting, but argued that the creation of such tag (elephantidae) should be discussed previously rather than simply start requesting implications for it.

II) 'sloth' is a quite ambiguous term, actually a disambiguation was suggested at forum #234449 (and you was there).

III) Some of that aliases suggestions probably are unnecessary due to lack of usage; more specifically:

• ankylosaur → ankylosaurus
• dromeasaurus → dromaeosaurus
• parasaur → parasaurolophus
• stegosaur → stegosaurus
• styracosaur → styracosaurus

IV) 'dilophosaur' already is aliased to dilophosaurus.

I will give a +1 to anything else, including the creation of the 'ceratopsid' tag.

I suggest also Implicating:

• dinosaur → reptile.
• allosaurus → theropod.
• hadrosaurus → dinosaur.

Nearly forgot abt the sloth thing lmao... my bad. but yeah in that case i meant it should imply the SPECIES of sloth. my bad

also yeah ceratopsid as a species tag would be useful considering they're a widely used species and there are many different ones (Styracosaurus for example).

I main said to imply mammoth as elephant and not elephantidae because elephantidae is such a small category that pretty much Only holds mammoths and elephants, so imho implying elephant would be more convenient and make the most sense? but that's just me

we do not implicate individual bottom level species to each other no matter how small the species family or kingdom is. Especially not when the have clear differences in one another.

-1 to the mammoth -> elephant implication

Ruku said:
we do not implicate individual bottom level species to each other no matter how small the species family or kingdom is. Especially not when the have clear differences in one another.

-1 to the mammoth -> elephant implication

I suppose so, but it seems a bit odd in this specific case since mammoths are literally just very hairy elephants, with only very minor differences between the two. Like I'd understand if it was much more different, but mammoths are just super hairy elephants, so i feel they warrant an exception to the rule?

but yeah again, that's just me and perhaps no one else feels that way. oh well

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:
I suppose so, but it seems a bit odd in this specific case since mammoths are literally just very hairy elephants, with only very minor differences between the two. Like I'd understand if it was much more different, but mammoths are just super hairy elephants, so i feel they warrant an exception to the rule?

but yeah again, that's just me and perhaps no one else feels that way. oh well

I believe I mentioned this before, about different species with unique names staying separate from their base species, but to clarify: if there is a species that is "unique", as in a name and body type different from what is considered base, then it gets its own tag and do not implicate the base species. Unicorns, for instance, are not horses; mammoths, in this example, are not elephants.

Clearly, you could argue that my first instance contains a fantasy race, but this is universal, where this rule occurs no matter what. However, names of species containing the base, such as blood elf and dark elf, are implicating their base species despite being unique (as a subrace). The name is what sets this rule in motion. There is one exception, winged unicorns are exclusive to pegasi and unicorns because tag consistency / searchability.

Siral_Exan said:
I believe I mentioned this before, about different species with unique names staying separate from their base species, but to clarify: if there is a species that is "unique", as in a name and body type different from what is considered base, then it gets its own tag and do not implicate the base species. Unicorns, for instance, are not horses; mammoths, in this example, are not elephants.

Clearly, you could argue that my first instance contains a fantasy race, but this is universal, where this rule occurs no matter what. However, names of species containing the base, such as blood elf and dark elf, are implicating their base species despite being unique (as a subrace). The name is what sets this rule in motion. There is one exception, winged unicorns are exclusive to pegasi and unicorns because tag consistency / searchability.

Ah ok i see... gotcha. Seems a bit odd to me but I get the logic behind it.

In the case of mammoths we should just implicate it as a mammal then, at the very least.

my other points still kind of stand to me, especially adding a possible ceratopsid tag to fit with the theropod and sauropod tags, and also to help catagorize the vast amounts of ceratopsid family content.

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:
Ah ok i see... gotcha. Seems a bit odd to me but I get the logic behind it.

In the case of mammoths we should just implicate it as a mammal then, at the very least.

my other points still kind of stand to me, especially adding a possible ceratopsid tag to fit with the theropod and sauropod tags, and also to help catagorize the vast amounts of ceratopsid family content.

I do not know anything about ceratopsid, so I can't say anything on it.

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:

In the case of mammoths we should just implicate it as a mammal then, at the very least.

Well, I do still in favor of using 'elephantidae' as a tag. Maybe it is a small group but implicating 'mammoth' to 'mammal' seems at last precipitated, doe to the broadness of such tag.

I just wonder where is the one who firstly requested the implication. It looks like he/she/it did it and vanished into thin air, instead of discussing the subject properly.

O16 said:
Well, I do still in favor of using 'elephantidae' as a tag. Maybe it is a small group but implicating 'mammoth' to 'mammal' seems at last precipitated, doe to the broadness of such tag.

I just wonder where is the one who firstly requested the implication. It looks like he/she/it did it and vanished into thin air, instead of discussion the subject properly.

Ah true... perhaps we could have elephantidae as the encompassing species tag and then have THAT implied as mammal, would work better

And yeah it seems the last person who questioned about it kinda ended with no solutions, a bit bizarre