Implicating sand_dollar → sea_urchin
Link to implication

Reason:

"The term sand dollar (also known as a sea cookie or snapper biscuit in New Zealand, or pansy shell in South Africa) refers to species of extremely flattened, burrowing sea urchins belonging to the order Clypeasteroida."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_dollar

EDIT: The tag implication sand_dollar -> sea_urchin (forum #262918) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.

Sea urchin should imply echinoderm as well, which in itself should imply marine

-1

While technically accurate, a sea urchin and a sand dollar look like two different things, and one lookign for one is not likely to be looking for the other, in my opinion.

y'know, for all 30 pictures this involves lol

Bump, just requested this

snowwolf said:
-1

While technically accurate, a sea urchin and a sand dollar look like two different things, and one lookign for one is not likely to be looking for the other, in my opinion.

y'know, for all 30 pictures this involves lol

This, theyre not the same creature and look nothing alike

If we move to a scientific name sure, but for the Sand Dollar and Sea Urchin, you have a flat disc and a sharp spiky ball.

Then perhaps sand_dollar should imply echinoderm alongside sea_urchin instead of through it.

This isn't about how the animals look, it's a taxonomical classification. Chihuahuas don't look very similar to siberian huskies, but they're both dogs.

is this tag even used to tag any actual characters? or is it just being used to tag the leftover shell/skeleton/whatever? since the term "sand dollar" to a lot of people means just that weird coin-saped thing they find on beaches.

Yeah, I think the most common use of sand dollar is for the shell itself, not the animal that produces it. The name “sand dollar” even implies that connotation, as the shells are found in the sand but the animal itself doesn’t live in the sand; it lives in the water. We don’t tag seashell with the species it came from. If there’s ever an actual depiction of the animal itself, we can tag it as Clypeasteroida or something more scientific, perhaps, thus dissociating it from the shell found on beaches.

gattonero2001 said:
This isn't about how the animals look, it's a taxonomical classification. Chihuahuas don't look very similar to siberian huskies, but they're both dogs.

We aren't implying Chihuahua to Siberian Husky now are we?

if we do want to have a tag for the species it'd probably be better if it was separate from the tag used from the shell.
I feel like using a tag like "cake_urchin" for the living animal would be a bit better, and then sand_dollar would be used to just to refer to the remains.

scaliespe said:
Yeah, I think the most common use of sand dollar is for the shell itself, not the animal that produces it. The name “sand dollar” even implies that connotation, as the shells are found in the sand but the animal itself doesn’t live in the sand; it lives in the water. We don’t tag seashell with the species it came from. If there’s ever an actual depiction of the animal itself, we can tag it as Clypeasteroida or something more scientific, perhaps, thus dissociating it from the shell found on beaches.

All of this.

gattonero2001 said:
This isn't about how the animals look, it's a taxonomical classification. Chihuahuas don't look very similar to siberian huskies, but they're both dogs.

This fundamentally goes against the tag what you see philosophy.

scaliespe said:
Yeah, I think the most common use of sand dollar is for the shell itself, not the animal that produces it. The name “sand dollar” even implies that connotation, as the shells are found in the sand but the animal itself doesn’t live in the sand; it lives in the water. We don’t tag seashell with the species it came from. If there’s ever an actual depiction of the animal itself, we can tag it as Clypeasteroida or something more scientific, perhaps, thus dissociating it from the shell found on beaches.

"Sand dollar" is still the most common name to refer to the living animal, and many people want to dial down the use of scientific names when an adequate vernacular alternative exists.

How about "sand dollar shell/skeleton" or something similar for the remains? There are dead sand dollars in post #2259454 and one living sand dollar in post #3469718.

gattonero2001 said:
"Sand dollar" is still the most common name to refer to the living animal, and many people want to dial down the use of scientific names when an adequate vernacular alternative exists.

Darryus suggested cake_urchin, which I think is adequate if we want to avoid taxonomical terms. It more directly refers to the living animal and also reinforces its status as part of the sea urchin family. Regardless of its popularity, the name “sand dollar” inherently implies its status as a seashell rather than an urchin.

How about "sand dollar shell/skeleton" or something similar for the remains? There are dead sand dollars in post #2259454 and one living sand dollar in post #3469718.

Perhaps, but the animal should be called something else regardless due to the heavy connotation with the shell rather than the animal. Of the 12 posts featuring sand_dollars, 11 of them appear to be just the shell, which means they’re all mistags. Even if you just call it sand_dollar_(species) or something like that, that would probably help - but the tag sand_dollar itself would best be aliased to the tag referring to the seashell, since that’s how everyone uses the tag. Most likely anyone searching sand_dollar is looking for a seashell. I’d still prefer cake_urchin for its name, though. That seems cleaner than adding a (species) suffix.

i think y'all are overestimating how many people would get tilted knowing sand dollars are sea urchins and how much people care about the differences between sand dollar skeletons and live sand dollars

i mean posts with just a skeleton in them still get tagged with the species of the skeleton if it's recognizable enough
post #3240711 post #301036

dripen_arn said:
i think y'all are overestimating how many people would get tilted knowing sand dollars are sea urchins and how much people care about the differences between sand dollar skeletons and live sand dollars

i mean posts with just a skeleton in them still get tagged with the species of the skeleton if it's recognizable enough

Looking at it from that perspective, actually it might even make sense to imply the tag for the shell to the tag for the living animal since they're so visually similar and recognizable

scaliespe said:
Darryus suggested cake_urchin, which I think is adequate if we want to avoid taxonomical terms. It more directly refers to the living animal and also reinforces its status as part of the sea urchin family. Regardless of its popularity, the name “sand dollar” inherently implies its status as a seashell rather than an urchin.

If we split it into "Cake" and "Spike" urchins, and just have those imply sea urchin, at least there'd be an easily found difference between the two. I could support that.

furrin_gok said:
If we split it into "Cake" and "Spike" urchins, and just have those imply sea urchin, at least there'd be an easily found difference between the two. I could support that.

Clypeasters do have spikes, they're just smaller than the spikes generally found on the more commonly depicted sea urchins. they're just more cake-shaped.

i'll admit; i totally misunderstood what we're arguing here. i was thinking of the argument in relation to how we treat most vertebrates and not how we tag seashells in specific. i agree that it would be ridiculous to tag every instance of a mollusk or clam or sea snail shell with it's corresponding species just by a seashell's presence alone, and that there should be a separate sand_dollar_shell tag in the general category (if any at all).

i still think a sand_dollar should imply sea_urchin, but i don't think that a sand_dollar_shell should imply sand_dollar_(species)

i'm still not crazy about what demesejha had to say about TWYS:

demesejha said:

gattonero2001 said:
This isn't about how the animals look, it's a taxonomical classification. Chihuahuas don't look very similar to siberian huskies, but they're both dogs.

This fundamentally goes against the tag what you see philosophy.

TWYS isn't a philosophy, it's a rule in place so we don't go running around circles in tagging wars on stuff like weather or not that 6 year old is actually a centurion because of lore. yet there are still exception to TWYS where it's warranted like gender or incest because in those instances context 100% matters both to the artist and the audience, and while i don't think we should discern species based solely off of outside context and "authorial intent", we should still respect the actual family tree of any species we can discern. like you wouldn't look at an Virginia Opossum and go "oh, that's a marsupial for sure!!!" but we still tag them as marsupials here

dripen_arn said:
i'll admit; i totally misunderstood what we're arguing here. i was thinking of the argument in relation to how we treat most vertebrates and not how we tag seashells in specific. i agree that it would be ridiculous to tag every instance of a mollusk or clam or sea snail shell with it's corresponding species just by a seashell's presence alone, and that there should be a separate sand_dollar_shell tag in the general category (if any at all).

i still think a sand_dollar should imply sea_urchin, but i don't think that a sand_dollar_shell should imply sand_dollar_(species)

this is kind of the same situation as a tag like "heart" (which is aliased to the symbol, <3, rather than the organ, heart_(organ)).
I think it makes much more sense that the normal sand_dollar tag (without the disambiguation) should be applied to the remains, as that's the grand majority of what the tag is currently used on. either that or alias it to a new tag that'd apply to those posts.
there's only one, maybe two, posts that contain a living sand dollar, and we should create a new tag (cake_urchin, sand_dollar_(species), clypeaster, whatever) to apply to those posts and have that tag imply sea_urchin.

The tag implication sand_dollar -> sea_urchin (forum #262918) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.