The bulk update request #8165 has been rejected.

Reason: I think it would be really neat to be able to search for all species that no longer exist. We already have a similar situation with the marine tag, an umbrella category for many species that are not taxonomically related but share a common trait (aquatic lifestyle in marine's case).

Source is Wikipedia as always, as well as https://www.extinctanimals.org
My BUR is, of course, incomplete. I will keep searching for these in the future.

I am not including fossil_pokemon, ancient_pokemon, or other fictional species in the BUR for now. Not sure how fictional species should be handled here.

EDIT: The bulk update request #8165 (forum #405533) has been rejected by @Wandering_Spaniel.

wandering_spaniel said:
I am not including fossil_pokemon, ancient_pokemon, or other fictional species in the BUR for now. Not sure how fictional species should be handled here.

Given that fossil pokemon are able to be revived, I'm not sure they technically still count as "extinct"...

strikerman said:
Given that fossil pokemon are able to be revived, I'm not sure they technically still count as "extinct"...

Yeah, exactly what I was thinking lol

Should we maybe distinguish between prehistoric species and recently extinct species? I feel like anyone using this tag is not exactly looking for pigeons.

scaliespe said:
Should we maybe distinguish between prehistoric species and recently extinct species? I feel like anyone using this tag is not exactly looking for pigeons.

We could! Perhaps prehistoric_species and holocene-extinct_species, and both of those would imply extinct?

Edit: I would be looking for pigeons when I use this, lol. I want a way to search for the recently extinct species as well, but certainly we can separate them

The bulk update request #8167 is active.

Reason: Alternative BUR covering Spe's suggestion. Definitely open to different names for those two tags if anybody has a better idea. Nah, I like this split format better, this is the one

Edit: Changing to prehistoric_species for species extinct before about 5,000 years ago and recently_extinct_species for after that cutoff

See topic #44446 as well for some missing taxonomy implications for these guys

EDIT: The bulk update request #8167 (forum #405550) has been approved by @scaliespe.

wandering_spaniel said:
We could! Perhaps prehistoric_species and holocene-extinct_species, and both of those would imply extinct?

Edit: I would be looking for pigeons when I use this, lol. I want a way to search for the recently extinct species as well, but certainly we can separate them

Works for me! I would probably be looking to find all the little dinosaur-adjacent things with something like this.

Speaking of dino-adjacent things, you can add in pelycosaur and eupelycosaur. We could even include synapsid according to how the tag is currently in use (for all non-mammalian synapsids, which are all extinct), but calling synapsids "extinct" sounds wrong since mammals are also synapsids. Not sure what to do about that one.

Also, you forgot a big one: saber-toothed tiger

pterosaur is another big one.

The bulk update request #8171 is active.

Reason: Part 2 - please feel free to keep suggesting species as you think of them!

Leaving out synapsid and eupelycosaur because like Spe said, its current use is sort of incorrect. We should deal with that separately at some point

EDIT: The bulk update request #8171 (forum #405558) has been approved by @scaliespe.

The bulk update request #8165 (forum #405533) has been rejected by @Wandering_Spaniel.

Some various:

• baiji
• elephant_bird
• cave_hyena
• cave_lion
• glyptodont
• ground_sloth (which should have giant_sloth aliased to it)
• irish_elk
• short-faced_bear
• steller's_sea_cow
• woolly_rhinoceros

pleaseletmein said:
Some various:

• baiji
• elephant_bird
• cave_hyena
• cave_lion
• glyptodont
• ground_sloth (which should have giant_sloth aliased to it)
• irish_elk
• short-faced_bear
• steller's_sea_cow
• woolly_rhinoceros

Thanks!
Added all except the baiji since it's not considered extinct yet (they will be confirmed extinct when it's been 50 years since the last sighting) and the cave lion since there are actually 3 different species called cave lion. Will deal with the lions later after we get them sorted out.

See topic #44446 for the short-faced_bear issue + others. After that goes through:
imply arctodus -> prehistoric_species

The bulk update request #8174 is pending approval.

Reason: part 3 :) I will keep slowly growing these as I find species

wandering_spaniel said:
The bulk update request #8174 is pending approval.

create implication menoceras (2) -> prehistoric_species (58123)
create implication gastornithiform (4) -> prehistoric_species (58123)
create implication hesperocyonine (1) -> prehistoric_species (58123)
create implication borophagine (26) -> prehistoric_species (58123)
create implication arctodus (4) -> prehistoric_species (58123)
create implication titanoboa (76) -> boa_(snake) (689)
create implication titanoboa (76) -> prehistoric_species (58123)
create implication megalodon (163) -> prehistoric_species (58123)
create implication dunkleosteus (103) -> prehistoric_species (58123)
create alias eurypterid (4) -> sea_scorpion (10)
create implication sea_scorpion (10) -> arthropod (74667)
create implication sea_scorpion (10) -> prehistoric_species (58123)
create implication anomalocarid (40) -> prehistoric_species (58123)
create implication sacabambaspis (22) -> prehistoric_species (58123)
create implication tiktaalik (4) -> prehistoric_species (58123)
create implication trilobite (34) -> prehistoric_species (58123)
create implication wiwaxia (4) -> prehistoric_species (58123)
create implication proailurus (1) -> prehistoric_species (58123)
create implication sea_mink (1) -> recently_extinct_species (1953)
create implication terror_bird (102) -> prehistoric_species (58123)
create implication leptictidium (5) -> mammal (3229109)
create implication leptictidium (5) -> prehistoric_species (58123)

Reason: part 3 :) I will keep slowly growing these as I find species

titanoboa! Which also needs an implication to boa_(snake).

The bulk update request #8167 (forum #405550) has been approved by @scaliespe.

The bulk update request #8171 (forum #405558) has been approved by @scaliespe.

wandering_spaniel said:
The bulk update request #8174 is pending approval.

create implication menoceras (2) -> prehistoric_species (58123)
create implication gastornithiform (4) -> prehistoric_species (58123)
create implication hesperocyonine (1) -> prehistoric_species (58123)
create implication borophagine (26) -> prehistoric_species (58123)
create implication arctodus (4) -> prehistoric_species (58123)
create implication titanoboa (76) -> boa_(snake) (689)
create implication titanoboa (76) -> prehistoric_species (58123)
create implication megalodon (163) -> prehistoric_species (58123)
create implication dunkleosteus (103) -> prehistoric_species (58123)
create alias eurypterid (4) -> sea_scorpion (10)
create implication sea_scorpion (10) -> arthropod (74667)
create implication sea_scorpion (10) -> prehistoric_species (58123)
create implication anomalocarid (40) -> prehistoric_species (58123)
create implication sacabambaspis (22) -> prehistoric_species (58123)
create implication tiktaalik (4) -> prehistoric_species (58123)
create implication trilobite (34) -> prehistoric_species (58123)
create implication wiwaxia (4) -> prehistoric_species (58123)
create implication proailurus (1) -> prehistoric_species (58123)
create implication sea_mink (1) -> recently_extinct_species (1953)
create implication terror_bird (102) -> prehistoric_species (58123)
create implication leptictidium (5) -> mammal (3229109)
create implication leptictidium (5) -> prehistoric_species (58123)

Reason: part 3 :) I will keep slowly growing these as I find species

I believe the arctodus implication can go through now

Some more:
• megalodon
• dunkleosteus
• eurypterid / sea_scorpion
• anomalocarid
• sacabambaspis
• tiktaalik
• trilobite
• wiwaxia
• proailurus
• sea_mink
• terror_bird

strikerman said:
Given that fossil pokemon are able to be revived, I'm not sure they technically still count as "extinct"...

Just noticed the extinct tag on various Monster Hunter species. Via the dinosaur implications. Which is... ehhh.
Along with all the dinosaur-like aliens, etc. Not sure I like this tag.

Not to mention that we now have posts of, say, Guilmon from Digimon tagged as both mythological creature and extinct. Yoshi too.

genjar said:
Just noticed the extinct tag on various Monster Hunter species. Via the dinosaur implications. Which is... ehhh.
Along with all the dinosaur-like aliens, etc. Not sure I like this tag.

Not to mention that we now have posts of, say, Guilmon from Digimon tagged as both mythological creature and extinct. Yoshi too.

IMO if a fictional animal looks enough like a dinosaur to tag it as one, then it looks enough like a prehistoric species to tag it as one

leptictidium

clawstripe said:
leptictidium

gesundheit

wandering_spaniel said:
IMO if a fictional animal looks enough like a dinosaur to tag it as one, then it looks enough like a prehistoric species to tag it as one

Looking enough like a prehistoric species to be tagged as prehistoric doesn't make them look extinct enough to be tagged extinct, though. Yoshi can be said to look prehistoric being based on a dinosaur, but that doesn't make them look extinct. So either dinosaur shouldn't be tagged on fictional species, or not all creatures tagged as dinosaurs can be called extinct (making the implication bad). Might be better to implicate extinct from more specific dinosaur species, rather than the more general dinosaur tag.

watsit said:
Looking enough like a prehistoric species to be tagged as prehistoric doesn't make them look extinct enough to be tagged extinct, though. Yoshi can be said to look prehistoric being based on a dinosaur, but that doesn't make them look extinct. So either dinosaur shouldn't be tagged on fictional species, or not all creatures tagged as dinosaurs can be called extinct (making the implication bad). Might be better to implicate extinct from more specific dinosaur species, rather than the more general dinosaur tag.

Any hybrids and derived species will be pushed into the new tag whether they look like the real things or not
those "dinosaurs" are based/built on speculative evolution:
post #4545208 post #3645463

IMO, I don't think a tag stating "this thing no longer exists" in lot of artwork disconnected from the natural history is feeling like a great addition.
Usability aside, I feel very upset about the change as part of the artwork I've been trying to create is inspired around bringing creatures to life. And I feel it kind of betrays that.
It's a minor turn-off to making art to post here and looking for the tagged posts. yea, it's correct, but I'd rather not have to be reminded about it each time I open one.

That's new to me, so I'd like to ask for opinions on how tagging could affect the perception of artwork.

watsit said:
Looking enough like a prehistoric species to be tagged as prehistoric doesn't make them look extinct enough to be tagged extinct, though. Yoshi can be said to look prehistoric being based on a dinosaur, but that doesn't make them look extinct. So either dinosaur shouldn't be tagged on fictional species, or not all creatures tagged as dinosaurs can be called extinct (making the implication bad). Might be better to implicate extinct from more specific dinosaur species, rather than the more general dinosaur tag.

zw3rn4 said:
Any hybrids and derived species will be pushed into the new tag whether they look like the real things or not
those "dinosaurs" are based/built on speculative evolution:
post #4545208 post #3645463

IMO, I don't think a tag stating "this thing no longer exists" in lot of artwork disconnected from the natural history is feeling like a great addition.
Usability aside, I feel very upset about the change as part of the artwork I've been trying to create is inspired around bringing creatures to life. And I feel it kind of betrays that.
It's a minor turn-off to making art to post here and looking for the tagged posts. yea, it's correct, but I'd rather not have to be reminded about it each time I open one.

That's new to me, so I'd like to ask for opinions on how tagging could affect the perception of artwork.

My intent for the extinct tag wasn't to say "this species is dead in the context of their world" but just to say "this is an animal that does not exist anymore in real life". Pretty much all of the extinct images show characters that are alive, not corpses, so in their world's lore the species is not yet extinct.
Prehistoric_species necessarily means a species that existed during prehistory, but no longer does, thus an extinct species.

Would you prefer extinct_species as a name rather than just extinct?

wandering_spaniel said:
My intent for the extinct tag wasn't to say "this species is dead in the context of their world" but just to say "this is an animal that does not exist anymore in real life". Pretty much all of the extinct images show characters that are alive, not corpses, so in their world's lore the species is not yet extinct.
Prehistoric_species necessarily means a species that existed during prehistory, but no longer does, thus an extinct species.

Would you prefer extinct_species as a name rather than just extinct?

That still wouldn't apply to many creatures tagged dinosaur. Yoshi and guilmon never existed in real life, so if we go the route that "prehistoric_species necessarily means a species that existed during prehistory, but no longer does", then not all dinosaurs are prehistoric species. If prehistoric_species means a species that existed during prehistory, rather than a species that looks like something that could've been from prehistory, there are fictional dinosaur-like creatures being tagged prehistory_species that aren't a species that existed during prehistory.

extinct_species would be a better name in either case, but the problem here is the implication chain. Either dinosaur -> prehistoric_species is bad if prehistoric_species must necessarily be a species from prehistory (as opposed to a fictional species that merely looks prehistoric, which dinosaur is sometimes used for), or prehistoric_species -> extinct(_species) is bad if prehistoric_species can be anything that looks prehistoric but isn't necessarily (which would include fictional species that aren't extinct in any meaning of the word).

A breed and not a species, but ojos azules are extinct. The gene died out because it was lethal and breeders no longer wanted to work on the breed for ethical reasons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ojos_Azules

Also, couldn't the dinosaur issue be handled by instead implicating specific species?

watsit said:
That still wouldn't apply to many creatures tagged dinosaur. Yoshi and guilmon never existed in real life, so if we go the route that "prehistoric_species necessarily means a species that existed during prehistory, but no longer does", then not all dinosaurs are prehistoric species. If prehistoric_species means a species that existed during prehistory, rather than a species that looks like something that could've been from prehistory, there are fictional dinosaur-like creatures being tagged prehistory_species that aren't a species that existed during prehistory.

extinct_species would be a better name in either case, but the problem here is the implication chain. Either dinosaur -> prehistoric_species is bad if prehistoric_species must necessarily be a species from prehistory (as opposed to a fictional species that merely looks prehistoric, which dinosaur is sometimes used for), or prehistoric_species -> extinct(_species) is bad if prehistoric_species can be anything that looks prehistoric but isn't necessarily (which would include fictional species that aren't extinct in any meaning of the word).

Please feel free to make your own dinosaur BUR if you'd like :)

wandering_spaniel said:

My intent for the extinct tag wasn't to say "this species is dead in the context of their world" but just to say "this is an animal that does not exist anymore in real life". Pretty much all of the extinct images show characters that are alive, not corpses, so in their world's lore the species is not yet extinct.
Prehistoric_species necessarily means a species that existed during prehistory, but no longer does, thus an extinct species.

Would you prefer extinct_species as a name rather than just extinct?

Might sound a bit better. Though still won't be be correct for many images.

Is this tag change really necessary for the site?

zw3rn4 said:
Is this tag change really necessary for the site?

Now that you mention it... I have to question, what's the value of lumping all these species together? 'Extinct' is a pretty broad category that doesn't have much in common as far as TWYS goes. Why was this even needed?

It certainly doesn't work for the intended purpose of 'searching for species that no longer exist', since it catches so many fictional things that never existed.

Been seeing extinct tagged on posts that don't warrant it a lot and have to agree with some of the other posts here. It's a pretty needless tag that has a ton of false positives- implicating something as broad as dinosaur to extinct catches a whole boat load of fictional and speculative species based on dinosaurs that don't fit the extinct umbrella. Monster hunter monsters, yoshis, interceptors, digimon, drekir, to name a few.

Dinosaur on this website is more of an umbrella tag for a body type than it is an actual species tag. If a character looks like a dinosaur, it is tagged a dinosaur, regardless of its relationship to actual once-living non-avian dinosaurs. That means extinct cannot and will not always be a correct implication- it'd be like automatically implicating taur body types to mammal despite not all taurs being half horse.

So unless we do a massive overhaul of the dinosaur tag to where only real species of dinosaur are allowed to use that tag, and fictional species are to be called saurians or something- OR we remove the dinosaur > prehistoric implication and instead imply all individual dinosaur/pterosaur species/clades ever tagged to the prehistoric tag, I'd argue this wasn't a well thought out implication and it seriously needs some reworking.

As it stands, as several people have already said, this implication's intention [being added to species that do not exist anymore in real life] simply does not work with the way it has already been applied. It's added a lot of unwanted and plain incorrect tags to hundreds of posts that can't be corrected without removing the dinosaur tag.

post #4774066 post #3509620 post #3761484
These things are not real dinosaurs and are not nor ever were real, so the extinct tag does not apply as it is intended. But you can't argue that they don't look like dinosaurs, so removing the dinosaur tag would be erroneous.

It's a really big mess right now and I hope we can figure out a way to amend it.

moonlit-comet said:
Been seeing extinct tagged on posts that don't warrant it a lot and have to agree with some of the other posts here. It's a pretty needless tag that has a ton of false positives- implicating something as broad as dinosaur to extinct catches a whole boat load of fictional and speculative species based on dinosaurs that don't fit the extinct umbrella. Monster hunter monsters, yoshis, interceptors, digimon, drekir, to name a few.

Dinosaur on this website is more of an umbrella tag for a body type than it is an actual species tag. If a character looks like a dinosaur, it is tagged a dinosaur, regardless of its relationship to actual once-living non-avian dinosaurs. That means extinct cannot and will not always be a correct implication- it'd be like automatically implicating taur body types to mammal despite not all taurs being half horse.

So unless we do a massive overhaul of the dinosaur tag to where only real species of dinosaur are allowed to use that tag, and fictional species are to be called saurians or something- OR we remove the dinosaur > prehistoric implication and instead imply all individual dinosaur/pterosaur species/clades ever tagged to the prehistoric tag, I'd argue this wasn't a well thought out implication and it seriously needs some reworking.

As it stands, as several people have already said, this implication's intention [being added to species that do not exist anymore in real life] simply does not work with the way it has already been applied. It's added a lot of unwanted and plain incorrect tags to hundreds of posts that can't be corrected without removing the dinosaur tag.

post #4774066 post #3509620 post #3761484
These things are not real dinosaurs and are not nor ever were real, so the extinct tag does not apply as it is intended. But you can't argue that they don't look like dinosaurs, so removing the dinosaur tag would be erroneous.

It's a really big mess right now and I hope we can figure out a way to amend it.

I still personally think the tag is fine for those images because they are based on creatures that are extinct. But please feel free to submit a BUR if you'd like to make changes!

The bulk update request #8618 is active.

remove implication prehistoric_species (58123) -> extinct (3)
remove implication mammoth (352) -> extinct (3)
remove implication recently_extinct_species (1953) -> extinct (3)
create implication mammoth (352) -> prehistoric_species (58123)
remove implication woolly_mammoth (39) -> recently_extinct_species (1953)
remove implication hydrodamalis (1) -> extinct (3)

Reason: Can’t see the value in the Extinct tag with all of its problems.

A lot of attention has been given to the scientific side in is implementation. But the main issue is that it simply doesn't seem to take into consideration that it's being used in E621.
Posts here deal with a lot of fiction and the TWYS system. Not all things here are listed in Wikipedia. And by the rules, the tags are supposed to describe the posts, and that’s how they have been used.

The Extinct tag doesn’t describe most of the posts it is tagging as far as TWYS goes, and also doesn’t fit the lore tag use in many of them.
Being simply wrong in many cases as an umbrella tag covering fictional/speculative species, hybrids, and other unrelated images pushed under it by the tagging policy.
And would still be, even if it were to be renamed to something else with the same function.

It doesn't apply to TWYS, post lore and fits a search role that could already be mostly taken by prehistoric_species instead. The tag from which it takes most of its implications and doesn't have as many problems.

Tags like dinosaur and such have been used as an appearance description for things that might not be dinosaurs.
Fictional creatures would only be extinct if their lore tells it, though this tag takes Earth’s natural history as the base for that.
Speculative species may branch from creatures under the umbrella, though the tag may not be applicable to them.
And for hybrids, it’s simply not applicable in about most cases if the tag is going to be used to search for extinct creatures.

post #3509620 post #3645463 post #3761484 post #4828480 post #2151480 post #4004730 post #1949930

Do these look extinct?

I don't have experience dealing with tag updates like this so I apologize if that's not how the requests are done.
This seems to be a tough one to fix, and I can’t think of a good way of doing so without rolling it back or reworking it completely.

(Sorry for bringing things up again. I Thought this would appear somewhere else)

EDIT: The bulk update request #8618 (forum #408857) has been approved by @spe.

zw3rn4 said:
Do these look extinct?

I mean, kinda.

dba_afish said:
I mean, kinda.

The second, fifth, and maybe the third, I could agree "look" extinct (i.e. look like a species that existed on earth and is now extinct), but I wouldn't call the others that.

watsit said:
The second, fifth, and maybe the third, I could agree "look" extinct (i.e. look like a species that existed on earth and is now extinct), but I wouldn't call the others that.

what about this one ?

zw3rn4 said:
what about this one ?

I mean, if we suddenly discover that, against all odds there are still parasaurolophuses knocking around somewhere and no one noticed like what happened with the coelacanth, or if some company is able to create viable clones of the dodo maybe we can talk about removing the implications from those.

dba_afish said:
I mean, if we suddenly discover that, against all odds there are still parasaurolophuses knocking around somewhere and no one noticed like what happened with the coelacanth, or if some company is able to create viable clones of the dodo maybe we can talk about removing the implications from those.

Maybe. We still would need to approve some of the changes above for that, though.

I very much agree this extinct tag is worth changing

The bulk update request #8618 (forum #408857) has been approved by @spe.

As much as I liked the idea, I do see how extinct as a tag at least doesn't make much sense for things like hybrids with modern species or other unusual cases. I guess it would be a bit like implying dead_character from every character that is canonically dead, but artists can violate canon whenever they want so it doesn't make a lot of sense in some cases. In any case, the combination of prehistoric_species and recently_extinct_species covers the purpose of this tag already, so this one isn't really needed.

Also I had to remove imply hydrodamalis -> prehistoric_species from the BUR because that's just incorrect. Mammoths are technically right on the border between prehistoric and recently extinct, but it was just a very small population surviving on a single isolated island for 6000 years after the rest of the species went extinct, and still never had contact with civilization which was only just beginning to emerge in Europe and Asia by that point, so I think it's probably thematically a better fit with prehistoric species even if the dates overlap a bit.

The bulk update request #8755 is active.

nuke tag extinct (3)

Reason: nuke extinct

EDIT: The bulk update request #8755 (forum #410146) has been approved by @spe.

The bulk update request #8755 (forum #410146) has been approved by @spe.

Sounds good to me! Thanks Spe

The bulk update request #8756 is active.

create implication arctodus (4) -> prehistoric_species (58123)

Reason:

wandering_spaniel said:
See topic #44446 for the short-faced_bear issue + others. After that goes through:
imply arctodus -> prehistoric_species

I forgor...

EDIT: The bulk update request #8756 (forum #410156) has been approved by @spe.

spe said:
As much as I liked the idea, I do see how extinct as a tag at least doesn't make much sense for things like hybrids with modern species or other unusual cases. I guess it would be a bit like implying dead_character from every character that is canonically dead, but artists can violate canon whenever they want so it doesn't make a lot of sense in some cases. In any case, the combination of prehistoric_species and recently_extinct_species covers the purpose of this tag already, so this one isn't really needed.

Also I had to remove imply hydrodamalis -> prehistoric_species from the BUR because that's just incorrect. Mammoths are technically right on the border between prehistoric and recently extinct, but it was just a very small population surviving on a single isolated island for 6000 years after the rest of the species went extinct, and still never had contact with civilization which was only just beginning to emerge in Europe and Asia by that point, so I think it's probably thematically a better fit with prehistoric species even if the dates overlap a bit.

Yea. Nice.
Thank you.

spe said:
The bulk update request #8755 is active.

nuke tag extinct (3)

Reason: nuke extinct

EDIT: The bulk update request #8755 (forum #410146) has been approved by @spe.

The extinct tag faces its own extinction event

The bulk update request #8757 has been rejected.

create implication hydrodamalis (1) -> recently_extinct_species (1953)

Reason: Implying to recently extinct instead

EDIT: The bulk update request #8757 (forum #410164) has been rejected by @SNPtheCat.

The bulk update request #8757 (forum #410164) has been rejected by @SNPtheCat.

The bulk update request #8758 is active.

create implication megalodon (163) -> prehistoric_species (58123)
create implication dunkleosteus (103) -> prehistoric_species (58123)
create alias eurypterid (4) -> sea_scorpion (10)
create implication sea_scorpion (10) -> prehistoric_species (58123)
create implication sea_scorpion (10) -> arthropod (74667)
create implication sea_scorpion (10) -> marine (132137)
create implication anomalocarid (40) -> prehistoric_species (58123)
create implication sacabambaspis (22) -> prehistoric_species (58123)
create implication tiktaalik (4) -> prehistoric_species (58123)
create implication trilobite (34) -> prehistoric_species (58123)
create implication terror_bird (102) -> prehistoric_species (58123)
create implication sea_mink (1) -> recently_extinct_species (1953)

Reason: Some mostly marine implications

EDIT: The bulk update request #8758 (forum #410168) has been approved by @spe.

The bulk update request #8756 (forum #410156) has been approved by @spe.

The bulk update request #8758 (forum #410168) has been approved by @spe.