Implicating canine → mammal
Link to implication

Reason:

A canine is a mammal

counterpoint: mammal is too broad a tag, as it covers almost all posts here. suggest aliasing to invalid_tag instead.

There is also a "reptile" tag. Why no "mammal" tag?

Lizardite said:
There is also a "reptile" tag. Why no "mammal" tag?

because mammals are way too common for it to be useful.

Sollux said:
because mammals are way too common for it to be useful.

12347 tagged with "reptile", a tag which imples "scalie", which itself contains 31991 posts. That's also far from uncommon. Yet it's there.

Same goes for avian (11536 posts); or marine (5450), which contains from sharks to jellyfish.

On the other hand, that was the argument against tagging anthro and it got repealed recently.

I think it could be potentially useful. Let's say that someone wants to fe. find mammal x reptile pairings... But there's no way to accurately search for that without mammal tag.

Then again, it'd end up being the most common tag on this site. Even more common than female. I wonder if the server could even handle it if this got accepted..

123easy said:
counterpoint: mammal is too broad a tag, as it covers almost all posts here. suggest aliasing to invalid_tag instead.

Aliasing mammal, right, not canine? Canine is narrow enough to be useful.

Genjar said:
On the other hand, that was the argument against tagging anthro and it got repealed recently.

I think it could be potentially useful. Let's say that someone wants to fe. find mammal x reptile pairings... But there's no way to accurately search for that without mammal tag.

Then again, it'd end up being the most common tag on this site. Even more common than female. I wonder if the server could even handle it if this got accepted..

The thing is that anthro has use in being able to search anthro and feral or anthro and human or all three to narrow your search. Mammal, comparatively, is like trying to classify all birds, reptiles, amphibians, etc. under 'amniota'. There's little point to it besides being scientifically accurate, which isn't necessary. Even then, because Furries, you can get hot-blooded reptiles, who aren't even reptiles because of the anthrofication that rendered them no longer tetrapodal, or half-shark half-wolf hybrids, and so on. Equine and canine and the like are useful for "generic furry A that you can't tell what they are beyond being vaguely X-like", so they get a pass as well.

thenewthing said:
Aliasing mammal, right, not canine? Canine is narrow enough to be useful.

Yeah.

Well I suppose if a tag is clearly definable, and helps people find things it can't really be rejected. That's not saying it wouldn't be way too common.

A "half-shark half-wolf" would be tagged as "wolf shark hybrid". Currently, "fish" would be automatically added because of the "shark" tag. Does that mean that "fish" implication for "sharks" is wrong because that specific character is also half-wolf? Nope. So isn't "mammal". That's what "hybrid" is for.

As you just said, there are tags for "avian", "amphibian", "reptile" and "fish". There is no reason why "mammal" shouldn't be in there. Saying that mammal isn't specific enough isn't really a valid argument, because the others aren't either.

Lizardite said:
A "half-shark half-wolf" would be tagged as "wolf shark hybrid". Currently, "fish" would be automatically added because of the "shark" tag. Does that mean that "fish" implication for "sharks" is wrong because that specific character is also half-wolf? Nope. So isn't "mammal". That's what "hybrid" is for.

As you just said, there are tags for "avian", "amphibian", "reptile" and "fish". There is no reason why "mammal" shouldn't be in there. Saying that mammal isn't specific enough isn't really a valid argument, because the others aren't either.

It is, because of the vast quantity of things that fit under "mammal". I know that 1/6th of all images on the site are MLP, which means that at least 1/6th of all images on the site would get the mammal tag. canine has slightly less than twice the number of images with pony in them. ~quine ~canine ~feline returns 206,797 images of the total 387,123 posts currently in use. Reptile has just under 20,000 images. There is no comparison.

123easy said:
It is, because of the vast quantity of things that fit under "mammal". I know that 1/6th of all images on the site are MLP, which means that at least 1/6th of all images on the site would get the mammal tag. canine has slightly less than twice the number of images with pony in them. ~quine ~canine ~feline returns 206,797 images of the total 387,123 posts currently in use. Reptile has just under 20,000 images. There is no comparison.

This is the main issue. The amount of images on the site that features mammals is so high that you might as well just assume it's an automatically included search term in most cases.

However, the other point in having it I suppose would be if you wanted to blacklist or filter all mammals out of your search, which could be useful. It seems unusual that you're able to do this for avians, scalies, and others, but not mammals. Still.. it's a tag that would end up on well over half of the posts on the site. =/

I dunno, I mean if it was just about searching FOR mammals then it's obvious it's not needed, but if you're specifically wanting to EXCLUDE mammals, we would need this. So I'm kind of torn really.

I'm sorry Char, but catering to people to that far of a point is just silly. If they want to do that, they can just blacklist -reptile -dinosaur etc. so that everything that isn't the scalie-type species/family taxonomically that they want to see are blacklisted.

123easy said:
I'm sorry Char, but catering to people to that far of a point is just silly. If they want to do that, they can just blacklist -reptile -dinosaur etc. so that everything that isn't the scalie-type species/family taxonomically that they want to see are blacklisted.

But what if they only want to see scalies and not mammals?

Conker said:
But what if they only want to see scalies and not mammals?

...This is really starting to frustrate me. Can you PLEASE read my ENTIRE post, instead of just quoting and posting after reading the first few words? Once again, I literally said how to deal with that in the very post you quote.

123easy said:
...This is really starting to frustrate me. Can you PLEASE read my ENTIRE post, instead of just quoting and posting after reading the first few words? Once again, I literally said how to deal with that in the very post you quote.

Again I DID read your entire post.

I was asking what if a user wanted to blacklist all mammals. Its the other way around, try reading my entire post before replying to just a few words. You cant get rid of all mammal images by just blacklisting -dinosaur.

Conker said:
Again I DID read your entire post.

I was asking what if a user wanted to blacklist all mammals. Its the other way around, try reading my entire post before replying to just a few words. You cant get rid of all mammal images by just blacklisting -dinosaur.

123easy said:
If they want to do that, they can just blacklist -reptile -dinosaur etc. so that everything that isn't the scalie-type species/family taxonomically that they want to see are blacklisted.

http://tfd.com/etcetera

123easy said:
I'm sorry Char, but catering to people to that far of a point is just silly. If they want to do that, they can just blacklist -reptile -dinosaur etc. so that everything that isn't the scalie-type species/family taxonomically that they want to see are blacklisted.

This isn't the same. The question is do we want to enable users to be able to find posts that have NO mammals in them, period. This currently can already be done the opposite direction, because we have the tags scalie, avian, and so on. If I want to find pictures of ONLY scalies, I can't do it without having to filter certain species (canine, horse, feline, etc) in my search. For only mammals, I can just search for -scalie -avian and I'm pretty much there.

123easy said:
http://tfd.com/etcetera

You mean, searching for "-equine -cetacean -canine -feline -lagomorph -human -rodent -primate -elephants"? Do you remember there is a search limit?

I'd say to add it and have implications for it, no one will be slowed down by the tag and there are some people who would use it. Also it definitely falls in twys, even if there are a shitload of posts with it.
I mean I wouldn't remove the scalie tag if suddenly a million pictures cropped up that would have it.

Lizardite said:
You mean, searching for "-equine -cetacean -canine -feline -lagomorph -human -rodent -primate -elephants"? Do you remember there is a search limit?

...*sigh*

123easy said:
If they want to do that, they can just blacklist -reptile -dinosaur etc. so that everything that isn't the scalie-type species/family taxonomically that they want to see are blacklisted.

Where did I say search, for a massive string or otherwise, in that? I didn't. I said to use the blacklist. Negative blacklist is basically whitelist- you want to see it.

Since you already provided the list of tags, blacklist "~marsupial ~equine ~cetacean ~canine ~feline ~lagomorph ~human ~rodent ~primate ~elephant ~avian" and either blacklist "-scalie" or use it as a search term (or both) and it will blacklist all non-scalies that are properly tagged, reducing your total visible post count to less than 1/10th all images on the site ever until you change your blacklist. Any additional terms in the blacklist will further reduce your pool.

Char said:
This isn't the same. The question is do we want to enable users to be able to find posts that have NO mammals in them, period. This currently can already be done the opposite direction, because we have the tags scalie, avian, and so on. If I want to find pictures of ONLY scalies, I can't do it without having to filter certain species (canine, horse, feline, etc) in my search. For only mammals, I can just search for -scalie -avian and I'm pretty much there.

And that is what's silly, Char. We only have slightly over 32K images with scalies to begin with. We are an image gallery, not a personal porn stash for people. If they utilize the blacklist, search for what they want, and then browse the images, they will be able to find the images they want. If they are SO offended that there is a furred furry in their scalie image, and the image IS properly tagged, as with EVERYONE ELSE we tell who doesn't like something, they can blacklist it. 93 characters of 3900 ( "~marsupial ~equine ~cetacean ~canine ~feline ~lagomorph ~human ~rodent ~primate ~elephant ~avian" ) is all it takes for them. Just like someone wanting to see only marsupials would have to blacklist "~scalie ~equine ~cetacean ~canine ~feline ~lagomorph ~human ~rodent ~primate ~elephant ~avian" or someone wanting ONLY canines would have to blacklist "~marsupial ~equine ~cetacean ~scalie ~feline ~lagomorph ~human ~rodent ~primate ~elephant ~avian"

Scalie and avian have their place because of the volume of images- They enable better searching because of the low volume of images of those types. All combined all sauropsids have just over half the number of images in equine alone. If Dinosaur and Reptile and Avian and the rest had as many images and subtaxa as Mammal does scientifically (if Sauropsida was the predominant clade rather than Synapsida, in other words) then likely they would never have existed or I would be arguing that they should go the way of the dodo instead. :P

Hrm, but at the end of the day it would still be easier to automatically provide the mammal tag (even retroactively) and help others have an easier life, if someone gets the sudden urge to not want to search for mammals (because he is looking for something, knows that it contains no mammals for sure but isn't sure what else) do we really expect the normal user to temporarily blacklist 11 different species tags just to allow him to skim this?

It is much easier for us to throw that tag on all needed images than it is to make users jump through so many hoops.

NotMeNotYou said:
Hrm, but at the end of the day it would still be easier to automatically provide the mammal tag (even retroactively) and help others have an easier life, if someone gets the sudden urge to not want to search for mammals (because he is looking for something, knows that it contains no mammals for sure but isn't sure what else) do we really expect the normal user to temporarily blacklist 11 different species tags just to allow him to skim this?

It is much easier for us to throw that tag on all needed images than it is to make users jump through so many hoops.

Hmm. The way I interpreted what Char was saying was for someone wanting to never see mammals, but if this is closer to what he meant, then I do have to accede that that is a valid point.

To address it, if the concept is so vague that you're only sure it has a scalie or an avian, how can you be searching for something so specific? If you know more about it, say it's a scalie solo male masturbating, you can search for that, and there's only 10 pages to search for the image you're looking for. If it's straight, then sub out solo male and you get two pages. Even so much as knowing that there is a bed in the image and some number of creatures in the image alone gets you down to 16 pages. If they're solo, 5 pages. For such a broad idea of the image, you can cut it down quite easily to just a few pages. Is getting just a handful more images cut out of the search directly (and it might even have a mammal in it that you didn't consider before, like a small mouse in the corner, or a Teemo hidden in the background) really that useful?

123easy said:
Hmm. The way I interpreted what Char was saying was for someone wanting to never see mammals, but if this is closer to what he meant, then I do have to accede that that is a valid point.

To address it, if the concept is so vague that you're only sure it has a scalie or an avian, how can you be searching for something so specific? If you know more about it, say it's a scalie solo male masturbating, you can search for that, and there's only 10 pages to search for the image you're looking for. If it's straight, then sub out solo male and you get two pages. Even so much as knowing that there is a bed in the image and some number of creatures in the image alone gets you down to 16 pages. If they're solo, 5 pages. For such a broad idea of the image, you can cut it down quite easily to just a few pages. Is getting just a handful more images cut out of the search directly (and it might even have a mammal in it that you didn't consider before, like a small mouse in the corner, or a Teemo hidden in the background) really that useful?

The problem here is, you assume that everything is tagged properly, fully and contains no erroneous tags, if that was the case, then yes, this would be much easier to solve but sadly it isn't, species are some of the best tagged things on images, if they are clearly visible, making sure those have more visible and useful options will likely help people.

And once again, that change wouldn't cost us 5 minutes to process and may come in handy later, while giving us no negative things or bad results anymore than it is doing currently.

then we can implicate mammal to animal because I only want to see trees, flowers, fungus and door handles.

Seven_Twenty said:
then we can implicate mammal to animal because I only want to see trees, flowers, fungus and door handles.

I'm sorry, but we do not cater to tree huggers and door handle appreciators.

NotMeNotYou said:
The problem here is, you assume that everything is tagged properly, fully and contains no erroneous tags, if that was the case, then yes, this would be much easier to solve but sadly it isn't, species are some of the best tagged things on images, if they are clearly visible, making sure those have more visible and useful options will likely help people.

And once again, that change wouldn't cost us 5 minutes to process and may come in handy later, while giving us no negative things or bad results anymore than it is doing currently.

I'm quite well aware at how poorly some things are tagged. Blacklisting all the species will still get you tons of images that should be tagged with various species, for example. What if the image wasn't properly tagged? :P Bad tagging practices shouldn't be used as an excuse. :P

I'm not Pinkamena-levels of against this, Nimmy. You've made a valid point for it to exist, I was simply providing a counterpoint to it to consider. I don't like how this'll bloat tag lists even more for such a small amount of a benefit (the very low level negative to anyone using the tag list that makes them have to scroll down just a little bit more > the sorta usefulness of the tag, in my opinion), regardless.

I can't understand why do I have to blacklist other species or whitelist when I want to look once or twice for pictures which may contain mammals only.

Blacklisting is IMHO for stuff you don't want to see never, ever, not as an extended search box.

NotMeNotYou said:
And once again, that change wouldn't cost us 5 minutes to process and may come in handy later, while giving us no negative things or bad results anymore than it is doing currently.

Okay, I'm convinced.
It wouldn't add much new tagwork either, since the implications cover most of it.

Tag clutter might be bit of a problem, but this is no different from the other same level tags.

And as far as I'm concerned, the less exceptions to TWYS there are, the better. Makes the tagging system less convoluted.

Genjar said:
Okay, I'm convinced.
It wouldn't add much new tagwork either, since the implications cover most of it.

Tag clutter might be bit of a problem, but this is no different from the other same level tags.

And as far as I'm concerned, the less exceptions to TWYS there are, the better. Makes the tagging system less convoluted.

There is such a thing as going too far, though, which I feel this falls under. It's not that it's an exception to TWYS, but that it's just too broad a catagory. It's like Cutie_Mark_Crusaders being tagged simply if any of the three of them are in an image, or the usage of any adjective_noun tags.

It definitely isn't a case of "no negative things" either; you even mentioned one yourself. :P

Lizardite said:
I can't understand why do I have to blacklist other species or whitelist when I want to look once or twice for pictures which may contain mammals only.

Blacklisting is IMHO for stuff you don't want to see never, ever, not as an extended search box.

If you're so not picky about seeing images with any mammal, then adding the search terms "-scalie -avian" to your search removes any image with a scalie or avian, leaving only mistagged images, the rare image without a character, and images with mammals in them. Considering volume, the former two catagories are basically nonexistant.

Bah.

Look at the definition of the wiki. Mammal doesn't have to be tagged when you see equines, felines and canines. I'd rather it'd be used when you see a mammalian animal you don't know, so you get a kind of unknown_mammal version of the unknown_species.

Asphyxia said:
Look at the definition of the wiki. Mammal doesn't have to be tagged when you see equines, felines and canines. I'd rather it'd be used when you see a mammalian animal you don't know, so you get a kind of unknown_mammal version of the unknown_species.

Then just search for "unknown_species mammal"