Every (plus 10 posts) missing bird implication in the bird tag group.

BUR #21500 has been rejected.

Missing from Existing bird implications (Linking to page 2 here because first page is mostly "red bird", "blue bird" etc)

Here's the missing implications for every entry on tag group:birds plus some more that weren't listed.

Holy fuck this took hours.

Some were flat out missing the implication, eg albatross didn't imply bird, but most were missing the "category", eg out of the four crane species listed two already implied "crane_(animal)" and the other two didn't. Some also had a tag already but it wasn't on the tag group:birds list eg, "northeren_cardinal" was already listed in tag group birds but the "cardinal_(bird)" (changed to "cardinal_(animal)) wasn't even though the tag already existed.

Turns out most of these don't have ten posts, fuck me. I've kept the ones that do or most of them.

Over the following days I will clean up the temp wiki pages.

Note some currently "soon to be elligble" birds
green_pheasant
African penguin
king penguin
hyacinth macaw
golden eagle
Japanese tit

Edit: Since there was some talk of removing bird implications

Just take a look at the most common birds:

With and without furry tags blacklisted (furry, costume and kemono_friends)

Chicken: 207 pages, 4100 posts
chicken furry: 3 pages
chicken costume: 1 page, 4 posts 2 of which have actual chickens post #2586392 (It's the chicken wearing a costume...) post #5712716
chicken kemono_friends: 1 page, 3 posts

Duck: 202 pages, 4000 posts
duck furry: 4 pages
duck costume: 1 page, 5 posts. 2 of which has actual ducks. post #5712716 <- same post as in chicken costume, post #295506
duck kemono_friends: 1 page, 14 posts, many actual ducks

Seagull: 196 pages, 3900 posts
seagull furry: 2 pages, most of which are furries on beach with actual gulls. Eg, post #5878483 post #5475508
seagull costume: 1 page, 1 post
seagull kemono_friends: 1 page, 20 posts

Eagle: 91 pages, 1800 posts
eagle furry: 1 page, 17 posts
eagle costume: 1 page, 1 post, has braviary. post #2586637
eagle kemono_friends: 1 page, 13 posts

Pigeon: 54 pages, 1100 posts
pigeon furry: 1 page, 13 posts
pigeon costume: 1 page, 1 post
pigeon kemono_friends: 1 page. 9 posts. Mostly actual pigeon. post #6290116 post #5101986 post #4239823 post #3004718 post #2941851 post #4329757

What's really missing is the animal tag for most of them NOT making it even more inaccurate by removing the bird implication when people upload (since most apparently remember not to tag kemonos with the species but forget to tag actual animals with animal.)

Why are you implying dodo to pidgeon?

I dont HATE the idea of this, the main argument mentioned also in your koi thread is the idea of animal girls. For example post #2925260 is tagged as Kingfisher. But personally I think thats stupid, we have penguin girl and other more specific tags so I dont think the main animal tags should be held hostage by kemonomomimi. I'd propose clearing out these tags and implying to the animal type. Granted I'd also be intrested in other opinions.

zetsubousensei said:

I dont HATE the idea of this, the main argument mentioned also in your koi thread is the idea of animal girls. For example post #2925260 is tagged as Kingfisher. But personally I think thats stupid, we have penguin girl and other more specific tags so I dont think the main animal tags should be held hostage by kemonomomimi. I'd propose clearing out these tags and implying to the animal type. Granted I'd also be intrested in other opinions.

Consider post #6190776 (anomalocaris girl), post #6407237 (sacabambaspis girl), post #2623632 (black widow spider girl). Do we really want to fall into the rabbit hole of having to create thousands of one-post tags like this?
And furthermore, isn't it more natural for someone to just search for anomalocaris + personification? What about ambiguous *other characters? Do we really want sacabambaspis girl, sacabambaspis boy and sacabambaspis other? You can see how this idea quickly falls into absurdity.

nonamethanks said:

Consider post #6190776 (anomalocaris girl), post #6407237 (sacabambaspis girl), post #2623632 (black widow spider girl). Do we really want to fall into the rabbit hole of having to create thousands of one-post tags like this?
And furthermore, isn't it more natural for someone to just search for anomalocaris + personification? What about ambiguous *other characters? Do we really want sacabambaspis girl, sacabambaspis boy and sacabambaspis other? You can see how this idea quickly falls into absurdity.

I would tag those most of those more broadly fish girl, spider girl, ect, until i had enough to justify a tag. Most niche animal girls are drawn with the animal they're personifying, though I recognize in the kingfisher example above it would be hard to find. There isn't a good solution in those cases.

zetsubousensei said:

I would tag those most of those more broadly fish girl, spider girl, ect, until i had enough to justify a tag.

fish girl has 2k posts. Asking people to sort through thousands of results to find a handful of posts just because we don't want to have an extra tag is not a great solution either.

zetsubousensei said:

Why are you implying dodo to pidgeon?

I dont HATE the idea of this, the main argument mentioned also in your koi thread is the idea of animal girls. For example post #2925260 is tagged as Kingfisher. But personally I think thats stupid, we have penguin girl and other more specific tags so I dont think the main animal tags should be held hostage by kemonomomimi. I'd propose clearing out these tags and implying to the animal type. Granted I'd also be intrested in other opinions.

Okay I'm a bit confused about what you mean because I can't tell if the second paragraph is meant as a continuation of the first sentence and that somewhat changes the meaning, but assuming they are separate points:

1) Dodos were pigeons, the largest pigeon before their extinction (Fun fact of the day: current largest is the victoria crowned pigeon, closet living relative of the dodo is the nicobar pigeon).

Look at this gorgeous thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwYleJYRMRY

2) I completely agree with you on the whole "hostage by kemono" thing. Especially since all of these were already existing tags. The only tags I created to make that bur were "super categories" when an individual bird had a tag but the type of bird didn't (on the top of my head the only one I can remember is yellow_bittern having a tag but not bittern, but I know there's more).

nonamethanks said:

Consider post #6190776 (anomalocaris girl), post #6407237 (sacabambaspis girl), post #2623632 (black widow spider girl). Do we really want to fall into the rabbit hole of having to create thousands of one-post tags like this?
And furthermore, isn't it more natural for someone to just search for anomalocaris + personification? What about ambiguous *other characters? Do we really want sacabambaspis girl, sacabambaspis boy and sacabambaspis other? You can see how this idea quickly falls into absurdity.

I don't really see how this relates to bird implications? How does albatross implying bird effect personifications more than goose implying bird? Most of them are missing from Existing bird implications (Linking to page 2 here because first page is mostly "red bird", "blue bird" etc)

War6t2 said:

Okay I'm a bit confused about what you mean because I can't tell if the second paragraph is meant as a continuation of the first sentence and that somewhat changes the meaning, but assuming they are separate points:

1) Dodos were pigeons, the largest pigeon before their extinction (Fun fact of the day: current largest is the victoria crowned pigeon, closet living relative of the dodo is the nicobar pigeon).

Those are very pretty birds.

If you look at the main pigeon tag dodos aren't what people are looking for I wouldn't imply them. They are very visually distinct even if the taxonomy is linked.

I still stand by my opinions above, but NNT's points are also valid. I guess there isn't a good solution.

zetsubousensei said:

Those are very pretty birds.

If you look at the main pigeon tag dodos aren't what people are looking for I wouldn't imply them. They are very visually distinct even if the taxonomy is linked.

I still stand by my opinions above, but NNT's points are also valid. I guess there isn't a good solution.

Fair, I WAS debating the dodo specifically because I don't know how common knowledge that is and they are probably the least "pigeon looking" pigeon on the site. But I stand with the other ones simply for following the general pattern of animals being implied. See various parrots and eagles for instance.

Another solution, and before someone asks yes I'll do the tag gardening for it. Tag the "pigeon" correctly. What people actually mean most of the time is the "rock dove", either create a tag for that or something like "city pigeon" and have it imply pigeon. But I think just having rock doves be tagged as pigeons should be fine also because of common usage, while still having other species imply pigeon.

On a related note: The pigeon/dove tagging system ("If it's white tag as dove") is ass. First of all, what about packs of them with one white individual? second of all IMO it's very similar to raven vs crow. There isn't a concrete difference between "pigeon" and "dove", in general larger species tend to be called pigeons and smaller species tend to be called doves. I suggest white_dove replace the current dove tag and imply it to pigeon. Hell, imo it's an even better example than raven/crow because as far as I know there is a bigger difference between raven and crows than pigeons and doves.

Also I wanted to ask the higher ups: Victoria crowned pigeon isn't the only crowned pigeon (just the biggest) but they look VERY similar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowned_pigeon, is it alright if I make a general "crowned_pigeon" tag, get victoria_crowned_pigeon to 10 posts and have it imply crowned_pigeon with any bird that looks like this but doesn't have species dated being tagged crowned_pigeon? The victoria is probably the most popular one and what is most likely intended by non bird-nerd artists, but just to be sure.

Apperently it bumps when I edit... I added great blue heron as I got it to ten posts. I'll be slowly adding more birds.

zetsubousensei said:

They are very visually distinct even if the taxonomy is linked.

I voted meh because of this.

BUR #21568 has been rejected.

create implication albatross -> bird
create implication blue_jay -> bird
create implication blue-footed_booby -> bird
create implication cassowary -> bird
create implication condor -> bird
create implication cormorant -> bird
create implication egret_(animal) -> bird
create implication emu -> bird
create implication flycatcher_(animal) -> bird
create implication kingfisher -> bird
create implication magpie -> bird
create implication cardinal_(animal) -> bird
create implication osprey -> bird
create implication potoo -> bird
create implication quail -> bird
create implication robin_(animal) -> bird
create implication tit_(bird) -> bird
create implication woodpecker -> bird
create implication bittern -> bird

Alternatively, here is the "imply bird" only version if people dislike "subcategories". Though I personally disagree with that as we already have those for many (mostly various types of parrot?) on the bird tag group list.

I mean look at any of these.

https://danbooru.donmai.us/tag_implications?commit=Search&search%5Bconsequent_name_matches%5D=macaw
https://danbooru.donmai.us/tag_implications?commit=Search&search%5Bconsequent_name_matches%5D=penguin
https://danbooru.donmai.us/tag_implications?commit=Search&search%5Bconsequent_name_matches%5D=parrot
https://danbooru.donmai.us/tag_implications?commit=Search&search%5Bconsequent_name_matches%5D=cockatoo
https://danbooru.donmai.us/tag_implications?commit=Search&search%5Bconsequent_name_matches%5D=owl

Okay, now that I finally went back and read through this as a bit of a bird nerd myself, I'll give you my opinion on this whole thing:

While I'm not personally against the idea of subcategories for birds, my main qualm is that often times it can be visibly very hard to tell what kind of animal an artist intends to draw other than pigeon or hawk or goose. While I do think it can be cool to be able to identify the exact sort of bird in the few cases where you can, does that really justify having hyper-specific tags for all these things? The vast majority of people can't tell the difference between the many different kinds of birds out there. Only what shape they look like. In my opinion, that's actually for the best, as Danbooru is an image gallery first and a taxonomy site...never. So why do we need hyperspecific bird tags like common kingfisher or blue-and-white flycatcher? Aren't the basic kingfisher and flycatcher (animal) tags enough?

My opinion on this matter is that subcategories should only be used for the most visibly distinct of a category of bird. Like for example barn owls. They're noticeably very different from your average tawny or great-horned owl. I can see the average non-bird nerd wanting to search for those. But for hyperspecific ones like the blue-and-white flycatcher, I can only see the most dedicated of taxonomists using those, which is...not what this site is for.

(Also, yes, I do have the same issues with implying dodo to pigeon as previously mentioned. Nobody searches pigeon wanting to see dodos, even if it is taxonomically correct.)

I do agree that for the more visually distinct birds like egrets and potoos that they should be naturally implied to bird. I just question the utility of hyperspecific bird tags when most people can't tell the difference anyway.

Maiden_in_Orange said:

Okay, now that I finally went back and read through this as a bit of a bird nerd myself, I'll give you my opinion on this whole thing:

While I'm not personally against the idea of subcategories for birds, my main qualm is that often times it can be visibly very hard to tell what kind of animal an artist intends to draw other than pigeon or hawk or goose. While I do think it can be cool to be able to identify the exact sort of bird in the few cases where you can, does that really justify having hyper-specific tags for all these things? The vast majority of people can't tell the difference between the many different kinds of birds out there. Only what shape they look like. In my opinion, that's actually for the best, as Danbooru is an image gallery first and a taxonomy site...never. So why do we need hyperspecific bird tags like common kingfisher or blue-and-white flycatcher? Aren't the basic kingfisher and flycatcher (animal) tags enough?

My opinion on this matter is that subcategories should only be used for the most visibly distinct of a category of bird. Like for example barn owls. They're noticeably very different from your average tawny or great-horned owl. I can see the average non-bird nerd wanting to search for those. But for hyperspecific ones like the blue-and-white flycatcher, I can only see the most dedicated of taxonomists using those, which is...not what this site is for.

(Also, yes, I do have the same issues with implying dodo to pigeon as previously mentioned. Nobody searches pigeon wanting to see dodos, even if it is taxonomically correct.)

I do agree that for the more visually distinct birds like egrets and potoos that they should be naturally implied to bird. I just question the utility of hyperspecific bird tags when most people can't tell the difference anyway.

Edit: Ah I misread that and thought you wanted to do away with the "category" tags like kingfisher, swan, eagle, etc. But no, while I'm willing to concede with the dodo implication most of these already exist for a reason and are visually distinct. Macaws are probably the best example. Look at their subtags.

Maiden_in_Orange said:

While I do think it can be cool to be able to identify the exact sort of bird in the few cases where you can, does that really justify having hyper-specific tags for all these things? The vast majority of people can't tell the difference between the many different kinds of birds out there. Only what shape they look like.

As long as you can tell which animal it is and it isn't visually indistinct with others or can be searched with other tags, I think it's fine. There are color tags for birds and blue-and-white_flycatcher's prominent color is blue for example, so it could be searched with flycatcher + blue_bird.

War6t2 said:

Ah I misread that and thought you wanted to do away with the "category" tags like kingfisher, swan, eagle, etc. But no, while I'm willing to concede with the dodo implication most of these already exist for a reason and are visually distinct. Macaws are probably the best example. Look at their subtags.

My issue is with hyperspecific tags involving minute differences that only the most dedicated of taxonomy people can ever garden properly. For example, the many kinds of little brown songbirds all over the world. I don't think the average Danbooru user can tell the difference between, say, the Carolina Wren or the House Wren, much less the kinds seen in other countries like Japan, so specific tags for them would just be a mess.

I have no issue with tags for, say, bald eagles or the many different kinds of parrots existing. I just don't see a point in differentiating between specific species that only five people on here can tell the difference between. And I'm not entirely too sure if we need a tag for common kingfishers specifically when the regular kingfisher tag is doing just fine as is.

Sessyoin_Kiara said:

As long as you can tell which animal it is and it isn't visually indistinct with others or can be searched with other tags, I think it's fine. There are color tags for birds and blue-and-white_flycatcher's prominent color is blue for example, so it could be searched with flycatcher + blue_bird.

I didn't think about color at all when I initially typed that up, but I agree. Basically where my concerns are, which I don't think I worded too well. The bird color tags do exist for a reason after all.

I don't see the harm in having tags for subspecies, if they actually serve a searching purpose. It's one thing to have tags for penguin species when the main tag has 6k posts, but in the case of kingfisher there's less than two pages of results, and most are of the common kingfisher, so common kingfisher is effectively useless as a tag.

Also @War6t2 don't make temporary wikis for implications, or we will reject your BURs. The purpose of our wikis is to provide aid for taggers, and they're required for implications because we admins have to be able to tell whether your implications make sense.
Even a link to a picture of the animal in question as a reference for taggers is better than a bunch of scientific names nobody's ever going to read.

nonamethanks said:

I don't see the harm in having tags for subspecies, if they actually serve a searching purpose. It's one thing to have tags for penguin species when the main tag has 6k posts, but in the case of kingfisher there's less than two pages of results, and most are of the common kingfisher, so common kingfisher is effectively useless as a tag.

Also @War6t2 don't make temporary wikis for implications, or we will reject your BURs. The purpose of our wikis is to provide aid for taggers, and they're required for implications because we admins have to be able to tell whether your implications make sense.
Even a link to a picture of the animal in question as a reference for taggers is better than a bunch of scientific names nobody's ever going to read.

Got it. Though I don't think I was the one who did any of the "scientific name only" ones. I did recently edit osprey which did have a scientific name but my edit was linking it to the bird wiki page. I would still keep the name in those cases but alongside the other information.

Is "A type of bird/duck/gull/etc" alright?

As for the usability thing: if some of them ever get more widespread I would rather nib it in the bud beforehand. After all, penguin species didn't go from zero posts to 6k overnight, they had that awkward middle stage too. That's not accounting for other people beginning to use the tag (which I've seen with some warhammer ones) or untagged posts, in this case I found a lot when one of the kemono friends girls were depicted next to their animal. I think that's partially why some of the penguin tags were so popular. Even if it's niche if they have 10+ posts irare tags still serve for organizing what is already there for people who might want to look at those pics again and if it has a functional clearly defined wiki, then yes I would want the tag.

BUR #21589 has been rejected.

This BUR pains me greatly. I, too, wish there was a way for bird species to simply imply bird. However, as outlined with the unfortunate animal girls and furries, there's no way to have that without also making a ton of related kemonomimi/furry tags. Therefore, if that's the case, the current species implications need to go as well.

nonamethanks said:

I don't see the harm in having tags for subspecies, if they actually serve a searching purpose. It's one thing to have tags for penguin species when the main tag has 6k posts, but in the case of kingfisher there's less than two pages of results, and most are of the common kingfisher, so common kingfisher is effectively useless as a tag.

Also @War6t2 don't make temporary wikis for implications, or we will reject your BURs. The purpose of our wikis is to provide aid for taggers, and they're required for implications because we admins have to be able to tell whether your implications make sense.
Even a link to a picture of the animal in question as a reference for taggers is better than a bunch of scientific names nobody's ever going to read.

There are 49 posts in total with either kingfisher as the tag or a kingfisher species. 44 out of 49 either are or appear to be common kingfisher. The other 5 are other species and have their species tags.

Kingfisher species do look quite distinctive from one another. You might need to know a bit about birds to tell which is which outside of the familiar common kingfisher but this isn't a group where your average person would struggle to tell them apart as is the case with, for instance, arctic tern and roseate tern. It's funny we have both of those tags when none of the birds in arctic tern are visibly identifiable as such from the image, unlike with the kingfishers where just about all of them are.