As this discussion started on the e621 Discord server, a question was brought up: cooked non-sapient/plain animals in an upload should make the upload eligible for the death tag?

The example in question was post #1715270, as well there are post #1386391 and post #1068710 whereas there is a cooked turkey:

post #1715270 post #1386391 post #1068710

The core questions so far are:

• While meat product foods are indeed dead animals, should death be applied to posts similar to those?
• Regarding ratings, what is the lining towards death in general? Should it in itself make a post be explicit, questionable, safe, or are there exceptions or something else must influence the post's ratings?
• As for blacklists, it's noted that indeed some people wouldn't want to see dead animals nor cooked meat that resembles animals, which would be the case for the example posts, and death best covers for it. Maybe there is a better way to separate this type of cooked meat from actual dead animals?
• In terms of tags, what could be the best way to differentiate whole-cooked animals to pieces of cooked, processed, edible meat?

Other examples that work fine with the death tag would be post #1975009, post #1660055, post #1996550 and post #2352954.

I want to hear more thoughts regarding this.

Also, in a more different note, would post #778825 be eligible for death, undead or none (alive)?

post #778825

The death tag is for people to look for, or avoid, images of a living creature that is actively dying in the image. So, no, cooked turkeys and the like do not fit the death tag. That Falco post is more borderline.

hairnoi said:
post #1660055

IMO, nothing in the image actually show it's dead (besides outside, real-world logic suggesting that a fish can't survive above water, but like, have you seem furry art?).

In general, I don't think pictures of cooked turkey should necessarily get the death tag, unless every post with beef would get the tag as well. Some kind of cooked animal tag or something might be better.

jacob said:
The death tag is for people to look for, or avoid, images of a living creature that is actively dying in the image. So, no, cooked turkeys and the like do not fit the death tag. That Falco post is more borderline.

*is actively dying in the image, or died shortly before the events of the image

jacob said:
The death tag is for people to look for, or avoid, images of a living creature that is actively dying in the image, or died shortly before the events of the image. So, no, cooked turkeys and the like do not fit the death tag.

Oh yes, there's another thing to that tag as well. The death tag is for the abssence of life, but it also includes cases where the creature is actively dying, when there are tags such as killing and dying, imminent_death and maybe others.
In fact, another thing that could be done for the death tag is to revert its alias and make it be dead instead of death. But either way.

jacob also said:
That Falco post is more borderline.

Also, there are at least 2 other uploads similar to post #778825, and maybe more if there are others where characters have the body of a whole-cooked animal.

Thread's moving fast so I'll just drop my take

• Meat for animal-based food items
• corpse for just-a-cadaver

Both of these are independently blacklistable, and neither need an additional tag to denote that they're a dead thing.

Also there should likely be a tag distinction between realistic and abstracted death so that this entire thread's confusion doesn't happen, and so that people can blacklist out graphic deaths while keeping PG cartoon/videogame type deaths that aren't as likely to disturb.

magnuseffect said:
Also there should likely be a tag distinction between realistic and abstracted death so that this entire thread's confusion doesn't happen, and so that people can blacklist out graphic deaths while keeping PG cartoon/videogame type deaths that aren't as likely to disturb.

We already have that to a certain extent with death by snu snu (doesn't always imply death), it wouldn't be a stretch to have something similar for other situations. +1

strikerman said:
We already have that to a certain extent with death by snu snu (doesn't always imply death), it wouldn't be a stretch to have something similar for other situations. +1

My mental image is keeping death as the primary tag for blacklist-coverage, and then filtering out non-graphic content with something like abstract_death, though I don't know if that's too clinical for practical tagging purposes.

Keyword is "context".
Whenever food is concerned, the use of the death tag should be avoided if possible UNLESS said post is showing the outcome of death.

• For posts where food is shown as "food products", either seriously (i.e. post #1715270, post #1386391, & post #1068710) or jokingly (i.e. post #778825 & post #1660055), you should only tag it with food and its respective meat tags (e.g., chicken_meat, turkey_meat, beef, pork, etc). Do NOT tag with death.
• For posts where death is the "only and obvious" theme here, either seriously (i.e. post #2352954) or jokingly (i.e. post #1975009), you should only tag it with death. Do NOT tag with food.
• For posts where food is the "outcome of death" (i.e. post #1996550) or where kills from hunts are going to be turned into food (i.e. post #1546094, post #1720638), then it should be tagged with both food (with its respective meat type) & death.
• For posts where food is "being made OUT of a character", either through "killing" (i.e. post #2435851, post #2347057, post #2448456) or vore (i.e. post #2407612), then you should tag them with death and its other associated tags (e.g., killing, corpse, gore, cannibalism) but NOT food.

hairnoi said:
Also, in a more different note, would post #778825 be ellegible for death, undead or none (alive)?

Undead should only be used for the traditional undead, such as zombies, ghouls, ghosts, animated_skeletons, etc.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Keyword is "context".
Whenever food is concerned, the use of the death tag should be avoided if possible UNLESS said post is showing the outcome of death.

I'm sorry, but reading this gave me the mental image of a deathless burger, and I can't shake the mental image of peeling off chunks of meat from a living creature to use for it.

Honestly, rule of thumb for the Death tag could just be summarised in a more simple way as "actively happening/just happened/recognisable cadaver/theme", unless we're abstracting it to all "dead" things, which would make the tag completely useless as we'd have to tag all wood, food, and leather items with it, as well as pretty much any other organic-based product.

... Wait, do bones implicitly get the Death tag? Now even I'm confused.

votp said:
... Wait, do bones implicitly get the Death tag? Now even I'm confused.

They probably shouldn't, especially when you can have visible bones inside, or otherwise as part of, a live character.

But most of the thread confusion seems to be coming from the OP viewing dead and death as the same thing.

magnuseffect said:
Thread's moving fast so I'll just drop my take

• Meat for animal-based food items
• corpse for just-a-cadaver

Both of these are independently blacklistable, and neither need an additional tag to denote that they're a dead thing.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Keyword is "context".
Whenever food is concerned, the use of the death tag should be avoided if possible UNLESS said post is showing the outcome of death.

• For posts where food is shown as "food products", either seriously (i.e. post #1715270, post #1386391, & post #1068710) or jokingly (i.e. post #778825 & post #1660055), you should only tag it with food and its respective meat tags (e.g., chicken_meat, turkey_meat, beef, pork, etc). Do NOT tag with death.
• For posts where death is the "only and obvious" theme here, either seriously (i.e. post #2352954) or jokingly (i.e. post #1975009), you should only tag it with death. Do NOT tag with food.
• For posts where food is the "outcome of death" (i.e. post #1996550) or where kills from hunts are going to be turned into food (i.e. post #1546094, post #1720638), then it should be tagged with both food (with its respective meat type) & death.
• For posts where food is "being made OUT of a character", either through "killing" (i.e. post #2435851, post #2347057, post #2448456) or vore (i.e. post #2407612), then you should tag them with death and its other associated tags (e.g., killing, corpse, gore, cannibalism) but NOT food.

While I agree with both propositions, one problem exists towards one aspect as I've pointed out previously: seemingly, some people doesn't want to see any kind of dead animal, it not being cooked or cooked (in other words any cooked animal that resembles said animal is a no-no).

I've been thinking, maybe create a tag such as dead_animal or something similar to rule out any case that resembles a dead animal, cooked or not, while excluding possibilities such as pieces of raw/cooked meat like chicken legs, wings and sushi or beef. Maybe?

magnuseffect said:
But most of the thread confusion seems to be coming from the OP viewing dead and death as the same thing.

The tag dead is aliased to death. So they are the same thing, however such alias should be the other way around as I've previously stated and reasoned.
So no, no confusion around here besides for the fact that death is applied for food.

hairnoi said:
I've been thinking, maybe create a tag such as dead_animal or something similar to rule out any case that resembles a dead animal, cooked or not, while excluding possibilities such as pieces of raw/cooked meat like chicken legs, wings and sushi or beef. Maybe?

Oh, I just noticed where I'm getting stuck here. I hadn't realised meat is specifically for foodstuff meat.
We do have an under-tagged + no-wiki flesh tag that could be used when there's nonfood dead-animal-matter that doesn't qualify for corpse. I'm not sure if that's what I need to substitute into wherever I've said meat here in any non-food context.

votp said:
... Wait, do bones implicitly get the Death tag? Now even I'm confused.

Again, context.
People who search for death wants to see death.

A pile of bones in a grave or hanging on a wall of a dungeon alone is not "death", but a pile of bones from a recent attack from a dragon is "death" (e.g., post #610122, post #2417524).

thegreatwolfgang said:
Again, context.
People who search for death wants to see death.

Maybe. But it is aliased with dead and implicated from corpse. And from the blacklisting viewpoint, it is important that there's some tag that covers all dead creatures.

The frequency at which turkeys and dead fish get tagged as corpses indicates that many users qualify them as such. I'm inclined to agree. Dead animal is a dead animal, even if they're commonly considered to be okay to eat or hunt.

hairnoi said:
I've been thinking, maybe create a tag such as dead_animal or something similar to rule out any case that resembles a dead animal, cooked or not, while excluding possibilities such as pieces of raw/cooked meat like chicken legs, wings and sushi or beef. Maybe?

We don't tag perceived sapience, and exactly what counts as an animal is ambiguous (especially when it comes to fictional creatures such as pokemon). So the only way this could be tagged is by the body type. Which would mean that MLP characters, for instance, would get the 'dead_animal' tag. It seems unlikely to work in practice.

Further input to the discussion: Should this post be tagged with death? I rather hastily removed the tag yesterday:

post #1660055

Is this a kind of picture that many people try to avoid, when they blacklist death?

Should we have some kind of dead_food tag added to complete something. Were I to avoid pictures concerning dead/death, I wouldn't like to see a scene of accident with dead bodies, or warfield with dead bodies, crime scenes, deathbeds... but I wouldn't mind this kind of picture. But I can understand that I'm more insensitive than others.

Also, is that a kind of picture that many people try to find, when they search with death?

I amended Genjar's reverted version of the wiki page by a reference to Genjar's post up there, and replacing the phrase character being killed with living thing being killed. I think living thing covers more intuitively all the Disney characters; Pokémon; MLP; livestock; and game. The word "character" easily makes one think of a more significant character – the former three of the previous list, but not the latter two.

I think there should also be a formulation along the lines of: More refined food items, such as sushi and burgers do not apply, as they do not directly display a form that was once animated, and they could be argued to consist of meat substitutes even.

urielfrys said:
Further input to the discussion: Should this post be tagged with death? I rather hastily removed the tag yesterday:

post #1660055

Is this a kind of picture that many people try to avoid, when they blacklist death?

According to @Genjar, if the corpse of a fish is enough to be justified as a corpse, then it would also imply death.
Personally though, I would only tag death in instances where the fish/fish_(food) is being hunted (i.e. post #1546094, post #1720638, post #187501, post #1860385, post #2091421) but not for when it is being served (i.e. post #1686685, post #945155).

Maybe a dead_animal tag or something similar is needed for people wanting total blacklisting of death and dead bodies.
But then again, it raises the question for some posts that do not really depict "death" (e.g., post #721031, post #721038)
post #721031 post #721038

thegreatwolfgang said:
But then again, it raises the questions for some posts that do not really depict "death" (e.g., post #721031, post #721038)
post #721031 post #721038

gore + violence?

magnuseffect said:
gore + violence?

If only the smiling head is left behind while the rest of the body has been eaten, could it be considered a corpse?
If so, what is stopping these posts from being tagged with corpse and death?

urielfrys said:
I amended Genjar's reverted version of the wiki page by a reference to Genjar's post up there, and replacing the phrase character being killed with living thing being killed.

So we're tagging cutting down trees now?

votp said:
Honestly, rule of thumb for the Death tag could just be summarised in a more simple way as "actively happening/just happened/recognisable cadaver/theme", unless we're abstracting it to all "dead" things, which would make the tag completely useless as we'd have to tag all wood, food, and leather items with it, as well as pretty much any other organic-based product.

No it wouldn't make the tag completely useless, and cases of every wood, food and leather wouldn't be included as they're objects and don't have character defining features/aspects. Surely anything living could simply be summarized down to "characters" or anything a bit more generic to beings that have some characteristic (any type of animal, anthro, human, etc), however the existence of dying and imminent_death makes death's definition of "actively happening" redundant and probably unnecessary.
Besides, the way death is defined in the first place is not restricted to characters, however it's applied to characterized forms or anything that resembles a living thing such as a cooked animal.

votp said:
So we're tagging cutting down trees now?

Nope. Keep it at 'character', it's clear enough. We have rules for what counts as character and what doesn't, while 'living' is too vague.

genjar said:
Nope. Keep it at 'character', it's clear enough. We have rules for what counts as character and what doesn't, while 'living' is too vague.

Where are these rules? They should be linked on wiki pages such as death.

The Help pages on Tagging don't seem to point out to these rules. Tagging checklist does nothing, except perhaps confuses by mentioning: Character? Tag the character's best known name. If not that, their full name., suggesting that a character is one with a name, which would exclude nameless cooked turkeys and fished fish.

Even the wiki page on group, which seems to discuss this item the most, doesn't really explain what qualifies as a character, or point out any rules or discussion on this. It does mention that character is someone, which would apparently exclude trees (except for treant? So we DO distinguish by sapience? Or by (the rate of) animation?) but questionably also insects and schools of fish in the sea? If you peek into a room, and you are asked: "Is someone there", and what you are seeing is an unanimated teddybear, two live birds and a colony of ants, it depends on your level of furryness, what you answer, between "no" and "masses".

I love that this has managed to turn from a simple "no, that's a dumb way to use it" to "let's edit the wiki page to make the tag useless and argue about what is and is not life".

Like many tags, the death tag on here refers to specifically to one concept to make it easy to search for or blacklist. In this case, it is the death of a character portrayed on-screen, and images where death is the main driving concept. Nobody rational looks at a hamburger and thinks "huh, death" the same way nobody looks at a man cutting down a tree or harvesting lettuce and thinks the same. Plants are living things, too, y'know, as are all the bacteria and viruses and other microbes that you kill when you bathe. If you're going to try to extend the death tag to all situations in which something is dead, you'd going to make the tag useless as, per-the-edit, all of these items and situations would require the death tag.
If you want to avoid seeing meat-based food products, blacklist "meat". Don't go changing definitions to forcefully add to the blacklists of people who don't want to see snuff/gore/torture/murder/crushing/starvation/corpses completely benign crap like somebody eating a hotdog. I can't believe we actually have to discuss this.

votp said:
I love that this has managed to turn from a simple "no, that's a dumb way to use it" to "let's edit the wiki page to make the tag useless and argue about what is and is not life".

Like many tags, the death tag on here refers to specifically to one concept to make it easy to search for or blacklist. In this case, it is the death of a character portrayed on-screen, and images where death is the main driving concept. Nobody rational looks at a hamburger and thinks "huh, death" the same way nobody looks at a man cutting down a tree or harvesting lettuce and thinks the same. Plants are living things, too, y'know, as are all the bacteria and viruses and other microbes that you kill when you bathe. If you're going to try to extend the death tag to all situations in which something is dead, you'd going to make the tag useless as, per-the-edit, all of these items and situations would require the death tag.
If you want to avoid seeing meat-based food products, blacklist "meat". Don't go changing definitions to forcefully add to the blacklists of people who don't want to see snuff/gore/torture/murder/crushing/starvation/corpses completely benign crap like somebody eating a hotdog. I can't believe we actually have to discuss this.

At no point have you stated your take on cooked turkey, which is mentioned in the thread subject.

You say that nobody rationals looks at a hamburger and thinks "huh, death". I would disagree with you. I have vegan friends who would think that. And I would say they are rational. They are concerned of the industrial meat production, and actually condone better game meat than industrial burgers, as the game animal have had the opportunity of life in freedom before they were hunted, unlike the industrial livestock in most cases.

Would you say that a rational person would look at a cooked turkey on a dinner table and think "huh, death"? I would call that a "meat based broduct". If you claim that with torso, wings and legs, it constitutes enough to be considered as a corpse (like I think one reasoning in this discussion goes), does a fried chicken leg also constitute for "death", or where is the line drawn?

Apparently there are people here who look at that picture of two cats, where one has a fish on their mouth, and think "huh, death". Are these people rational or not in your opinion?

For me, none of these three cases make me think "huh, death". If it was, for example, Disney's Nemo there, it would be different.

urielfrys said:
At no point have you stated your take on cooked turkey, which is mentioned in the thread subject.

You say that nobody rationals looks at a hamburger and thinks "huh, death". I would disagree with you. I have vegan friends who would think that. And I would say they are rational. They are concerned of the industrial meat production, and actually condone better game meat than industrial burgers, as the game animal have had the opportunity of life in freedom before they were hunted, unlike the industrial livestock in most cases.

Would you say that a rational person would look at a cooked turkey on a dinner table and think "huh, death"? I would call that a "meat based broduct". If you claim that with torso, wings and legs, it constitutes enough to be considered as a corpse (like I think one reasoning in this discussion goes), does a fried chicken leg also constitute for "death", or where is the line drawn?

Apparently there are people here who look at that picture of two cats, where one has a fish on their mouth, and think "huh, death". Are these people rational or not in your opinion?

For me, none of these three cases make me think "huh, death". If it was, for example, Disney's Nemo there, it would be different.

You know, I was joking with somebody about this entire thread literally being "vegans on e621 trying to push their beliefs on everyone".

Okay homie, if you want all meat products to qualify for death/corpse/whatever, you also have to tag all wood products, leather products, cooked vegetables, usages of soap, and especially any forms of bread or alcohol as death as well. If you are legitimately trying to argue for using the death tag on here for things it is not intended to be used for (y'know, filtering out snuff, murder, and other related content), you have to go all the way and tag any situation in which a living organism has been killed. We can totally make a completely new tag for filtering out what the death tag was supposed to be used for, perhaps "character_death", given the edit y'all are trying to do to generalise the extant death tag away from characters, and a "character_corpse" tag to go with it.

This is frustratingly ridiculous... I will never ever tag death to any recognizable meat products, let alone cooked. What's more ridiculous is that food_creature exists, and I would not tag death to a post with talking, moving pieces of meat.

I don't really see the point of tagging posts with meat as death when we already have the meat tag. if people don't want to see meat products than blacklist meat, changing it to imply death or tagging meat products as death just makes everyone's life more difficult for no literally no benefit.

darryus said:
I don't really see the point of tagging posts with meat as death when we already have the meat tag. if people don't want to see meat products than blacklist meat, changing it to imply death or tagging meat products as death just makes everyone's life more difficult for no literally no benefit.

This. Right here. I also don't see any reason to tag it as death.

The only examples that make sense to me to even be tagged death, are situations where you actually see a character or other animal die, or there's sufficient proof that it is a dead animal that has not been processed or cooked yet. Such as a fish with x-eyes, or a game animal that's just been shot with an arrow or bullet. A raw chicken or turkey sitting on someone's kitchen counter, already beheaded and processed for consumption, is not what I'd consider death. At that point it's simply food, or a product from the animal's body, no different than raw leather or whatever else you might take from a particular animal.

Personally, if I blacklisted death, I'd expect to be blacklisting actual character deaths or hunting (fishing is debatable since the fish is alive for a while after you catch it, and not everyone fishes to kill/eat the fish). I would not expect to simultaneously be blacklisting meat products just because they happen to come from an animal. That's not intuitive to me, and I imagine, by many of the responses here, that it's not intuitive to other people either. It would just cause confusion, and frustration.

If people don't like seeing meat, blacklist that instead of saying it belongs under death. As far as I'm concerned, that's the easiest and least problem-inducing conclusion.

votp said:
You know, I was joking with somebody about this entire thread literally being "vegans on e621 trying to push their beliefs on everyone".

Frankly, you saying this makes me believe you haven't read the first few phrases at the start of this thread, nor the rest of the original post. This isn't about "vegans trying to push their beliefs on everyone" or anything else on that side of the matter. It's actually a fair discussion about whether or not meat produces, specially the ones that closely resembles animals, should get the death tag as I've right at the start presented as a question and exemplified with those uploads.

votp said:
Okay homie, if you want all meat products to qualify for death/corpse/whatever, you also have to tag all wood products, leather products, cooked vegetables, usages of soap, and especially any forms of bread or alcohol as death as well. If you are legitimately trying to argue for using the death tag on here for things it is not intended to be used for (y'know, filtering out snuff, murder, and other related content), you have to go all the way and tag any situation in which a living organism has been killed. We can totally make a completely new tag for filtering out what the death tag was supposed to be used for, perhaps "character_death", given the edit y'all are trying to do to generalise the extant death tag away from characters, and a "character_corpse" tag to go with it.

Again, the idea is already set: meat produces are indeed dead animals, and there have been cases where some of the meat produces present in posts (i.e. the ones that were exemplified at the start of the thread) make such uploads eligible for the death tag with the reasoning about blacklists.
This thread's objective is to find a way to fix such thing and present a fair tag to use as a general blacklist and properly define death to not be applied over meat produces such as turkeys, or something else similar.

(took me a while to process this thread properly)

hairnoi said:
Again, the idea is already set: meat produces are indeed dead animals, and there have been cases where some of the meat produces present in posts (i.e. the ones that were exemplified at the start of the thread) make such uploads ellegible for the death tag with the reasoning about blacklists.
This thread's objective is to find a way to fix such thing and present a fair tag to use as a general blacklist and properly define death to not be applied over meat produces such as turkeys, or something else similar.

Edit counts encourage overzealous tagging and there's no guidance until someone actually notices, which (as in this case) might not happen until someone searches the tag 11 months later.
I want to point out that all four of the opening example posts were tagged as death by a single user and shouldn't be given any more inherent weight-of-reasoning than a single voice here in the forum. Tags are wrong all the time, nobody noticing for 11 months doesn't mean that the tagging was ever "eligible".
That itself doesn't need fixing, though I'm not against having a separate tag specifically for recognisably-whole meat products such as a lot of traditional roasts. whole_cooked isn't intuitive for uncooked examples, would whole_prepared_meat work?

I would still not consider the cooked turkey images as death, as they are both a recognisable processed food product, and within context not recognisable as the immediate outcome of an event depicted within their artworks.
The Falco post is the closest to what I'd consider death, though it's heavily muddied by the character being clearly alive enough to be viewed as communicative, and at the same time any "death" aspect is about on the same abstraction level as hitting a Minecraft chicken and watching it instantly become an item.

magnuseffect said:
though I'm not against having a separate tag specifically for recognisably-whole meat products such as a lot of traditional roasts. whole_cooked isn't intuitive for uncooked examples, would whole_prepared_meat work?

I'd throw my vote in for a whole_prepared_meat tag, or some other such name, if someone wanted to make it. Definitely a better answer, in my opinion, than tagging pictures of food with death.

I wouldn't tag those as death, but corpse feels appropriate. Which is a problem, considering that corpse currently implies death.

Turkeys might be a cultural thing in US and people over there may be used to seeing those, but as an outsider, those look pretty jarring; especially the post where is Sans wearing a beheaded bird on his head. I can't see that as food, I see that as gore. Over here, we prefer our meats processed and unrecognizable. And that cultural difference is probably why those keep getting tagged as corpse.

genjar said:
I wouldn't tag those as death, but corpse feels appropriate. Which is a problem, considering that corpse currently implies death.

Turkeys might be a cultural thing in US and people over there may be used to seeing those, but as an outsider, those look pretty jarring; especially the post where is Sans wearing a beheaded bird on his head. I can't see that as food, I see that as gore. Over here, we prefer our meats processed and unrecognizable. And that cultural difference is probably why those keep getting tagged as corpse.

I mean, you can get chicken in the same state pretty much anywhere on the planet, I don't think "whole poultry" is a US-exclusive thing by any stretch of the imagination, the only real diffence once they're minimally processed and plucked to that state is sheer size (and honestly, based on personal experience in Asia, it's a lot more gruesome there given they typically leave the head on). Meat is a tag, and it separates everything like this from both content that does not include it, and from outright murder, death, and gore.

Let me give you a little thought experiment, is the post below considered a corpse?
post #1717376
If yes, then it would be eligible for necrophilia - sexual relations between a character and a corpse.
If no, then what is the fine line between it and a corpse? A turkey with its head still on? The fact that it was cooked and not raw?

I feel that corpse should stay as far away from food/meat as possible, unless the context makes it certain that death is involved.

• post #2459359 - not death, tag with fish & biting.
• post #1660055 - not death, tag with fish_(food) & biting.
• post #2425335 & post #1849170 - not death, tag with fish_(food) & eating (and maybe corpse, see next section).
• post #2176555 & post #1671782 - is death, tag with fish_(food) & corpse.

On another note, the inherent problem with using corpse on food is the implication of death, with can also be untrue in some cases.

• post #17581 - A lion eating his freshly killed prey can be corpse and death.
• post #1809538 - A fully prepared buffet spread of a person's corpse can also be corpse and death.
• post #1904203 & post #1386391 - A prepared meal of a bird's corpse can be both corpse and death (i.e. post #1904203) and neither (post #1386391) at the same time.
• post #2425335 & post #1849170 - Predators eating the prey's corpse can be corpse but not death.

Prepared or processed food items are not to be tagged with death unless it's some sort of guro fetish thing where you can actually make out a or the distinct character.

In the OPs examples all of those birds are processed and cooked, otherwise they would be flesh colored instead of browned, hence they're food instead of a regular icky corpse.

Also, entire birds like that are sold basically anywhere in the western world, though usually they're rotisserie chickens and not entire turkeys like in the US thanksgiving tradition.

As for potentially blacklisting food like that, how about animal_roast_(food)? Wouldn't exactly cover fried fish which is often depicted or sold even with the head still attached, but it'd cover all those fancy big roasts that are in style for a bunch of ceremonies around the world.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Let me give you a little thought experiment, is the post below considered a corpse?
post #1717376
If yes, then it would be eligible for necrophilia - sexual relations between a character and a corpse.
If no, then what is the fine line between it and a corpse? A turkey with its head still on? The fact that it was cooked and not raw?

Conceptually, it's similar to post #778825 and post #1068710, as there's a need for a proper lining regarding if such turkeys do need to be considered eligible for corpse/death, because in #778825, Falco is rather alive yet "considered" dead because his head is in a roasted turkey body, while in #1068710, Sans' head is of/in a turkey's roasted body, and yet it's still considered corpse without another additional tag given the type of interaction. Besides, both are rated questionable, which brings the question again: how such tags impact on a post's rating?

magnuseffect said:
Edit counts encourage overzealous tagging and there's no guidance until someone actually notices, which (as in this case) might not happen until someone searches the tag 11 months later.
I want to point out that all four of the opening example posts were tagged as death by a single user and shouldn't be given any more inherent weight-of-reasoning than a single voice here in the forum. Tags are wrong all the time, nobody noticing for 11 months doesn't mean that the tagging was ever "eligible".
That itself doesn't need fixing, though I'm not against having a separate tag specifically for recognisably-whole meat products such as a lot of traditional roasts. whole_cooked isn't intuitive for uncooked examples, would whole_prepared_meat work?

Yes, mostly, if not all, were applied by a single user, however as such examples were brought up at the start of the discussion in e621's Discord server, it was pointed out by @Genjar that such tag application involved the blacklisting of whole-cooked animals, and the fact that there isn't a proper tag made the application fair, even if it's also fairly wrong.
I believe the issue is the addition of the death tag through implication of corpse, as corpse is seemingly the one that gets used to cover cases of whole-cooked animals.

I vehemently agree, along with similar replies, that food items shouldn't be tagged with death, maybe corpse (depending on how raw and decayed it is, with the issue of it implying death as @Genjar pointed out), however a proper tag should be created, and probably a proper definition should be given to the death tag, even having it's alias inverted to being dead instead of death (as corpse means it's already dead, so would make sense as it implies death), however that's for another thread/discussion.

notmenotyou said:
As for potentially blacklisting food like that, how about animal_roast_(food)? Wouldn't exactly cover fried fish which is often depicted or sold even with the head still attached, but it'd cover all those fancy big roasts that are in style for a bunch of ceremonies around the world.

There could be a more general term, similar to whole-cooked_animal that could encompass animals that are prepared to be edible without the exclusion of raw fish dishes. Maybe whole-prepared_animal or whole-animal_(food), or even whole-prepared_meat as @MagnusEffect suggested.

hairnoi said:
There could be a more general term, similar to whole-cooked_animal that could encompass animals that are prepared to be edible without the exclusion of raw fish dishes. Maybe whole-prepared_animal or whole-animal_(food), or even whole-prepared_meat as @MagnusEffect suggested.

I think, out of these, whole-animal_(food) would be best, ast the tag should cover dried fish, freshly caught fish with no characteristics of a character.

This would also kind of resolve the pokémon-issue, as with this inclusive tag, not all pokémon should be considered as whole animal food beings, but for example a magicarp could be depicted in some case as such. The divider here, as in meat eating alltogether, has to do with significance, perhaps more than sapience. A deer is no less sapient than a dog, but dogs are more significant in the western cultures, so they are not considered as food, whereas deer are. Certainly, in furrydom and vegandom this significance is delimited differently, as is also known that for some cultures, eating dogs is not an issue. whole-animal_(food) without implication to death would benefit a wider array of people than just the mere death for both cases does now.

I think this is a good example for this discussion for an image, where the death tag is valid, although the dead character isn't particularly depicted with sapience:

post #896572

The dead one is clearly a character is the picture, whose characterness has had signifigance to the other character. On case of this earlier example:

post #1660055

The fish in the cat's mouth isn't as evidently a character. It could be, but it's not obvious without lore knowledge. It could be that the cats are on their way to take the fish to water, where it can breath again. Or it could be that they have particularly assassinated this one fish. But it's not evident on this image alone.

The rat image would be death but not whole-animal_(food), whereas the fish image would be whole-animal_(food) but not death, as the intention of the image is not to portray death. The rat picture does intend to portray death. (And I argue, that the rat indeed is dead, and not just pining for the fjords and sleeping, based on the expression on the other character.)