The tag implication #68067 northwestern_wolf -> wolf has been approved.

Reason: A species of wolf.

EDIT: The tag implication northwestern_wolf -> wolf (forum #455184) has been approved by @spe.

Imo it should be aliased. Frankly, most subspecies tags are pure bloat anyway, but looking at the posts tagged northwestern_wolf, it is being added by only one person with zero justification to characters whose species is only known as 'grey wolf.' I cannot tell what criteria is being used to make this call. It's even being added to grandfathered photos, completely incorrectly.
These are not NW wolves, these look like a Eurasian subspecies- as supported by them being in a European zoo.
post #403767

An alias would probably be better. Since gray_wolf and its variants are aliased to wolf, we might as well do the same here, especially if it's being mistagged on any old wolf, regardless of their grayness.

clawstripe said:
An alias would probably be better. Since gray_wolf and its variants are aliased to wolf, we might as well do the same here, especially if it's being mistagged on any old wolf, regardless of their grayness.

In fairness, other subspecies of grey wolves DO have tags like eurasian_wolf and tundra_wolf. These tags are still, imo, bloat. When used correctly they're largely vanity tags. Mostly they get added by people misusing them- tagging random white wolves as tundra or arctic_wolf, tagging European characters as eurasian_wolf, or whatever was going on here.

No. The northwestern wolf is just as much of a species of wolf as the Eurasian wolf or arctic wolf. So I think aliasing it is pointless.

Also, there's no need for proof of a character's species when it's obvious just by looking at them.

biggraywolf said:
No. The northwestern wolf is just as much of a species of wolf as the Eurasian wolf or arctic wolf. So I think aliasing it is pointless.

Also, there's no need for proof of a character's species when it's obvious just by looking at them.

What do you mean it's obvious? Every character you've added it to has NO features that mark it anything but 'wolf.' What features are 'obviously' a northwestern wolf here?
post #5601281post #5452856post #5325423

Your tag history is full of bad species tagging. Please do not add species or species based on your personal headcanon for the characters.

Fine then, but you need to stop being rude. I've tagged species based on evidence I've seen online, whether you like it or not.

While the Northwestern Wolf is a real and accepted subspecies of the Grey Wolf, it is absolutely not possible to tag it by TWYS since, other than the range and genetics, the only characteristic trait is that they're particularly large. This means absolutely nothing once you add differences between individuals and artstyles into the mix.

This tag would only ever be useful from TWYK, never from TWYS

I do agree that it's as valid as eurasian wolf and pretty much every single other subspecies of the Grey Wolf. That doesn't, however, mean it's valid in the first place. To me it really seems like 90% of the subspecies tags are just redundant instead.

If you want me to leave this site, then that's just what I'll do…

bugabond said:
While the Northwestern Wolf is a real and accepted subspecies of the Grey Wolf, it is absolutely not possible to tag it by TWYS since, other than the range and genetics, the only characteristic trait is that they're particularly large. This means absolutely nothing once you add differences between individuals and artstyles into the mix.

This tag would only ever be useful from TWYK, never from TWYS

Species is, generally, more heavily twyk, so that aspect of subspecies tags isn't an issue. The problem is that a single species can have SO many subspecies and taxonomy at that level changes frequently. I do not think we need 30-40 tags for grey wolves. Most of them would not be useful tags for searching or for blacklisting because there isn't going to be a major difference in how they get drawn. Subspecies tags should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis because some DO have significant morphological differences that show up in art.

regsmutt said:
Subspecies tags should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis because some DO have significant morphological differences that show up in art.

I should have been more specific - I meant specifically Grey Wolf subspecies. To my knowledge, the Arctic Wolf is the only one that's visibly different, but even then, it's just fur color as far as I am aware. But truthfully, I am not particularly educated when it comes to canines.

In general, I am not opposed to TWYK tagging regarding species - I've been doing it myself so long as there's sufficient information from the author/sources AND it doesn't go against TWYS, but I do believe that there's such a thing as too much granularity and a lot of subspecies seem to be in that territory.

bugabond said:
I should have been more specific - I meant specifically Grey Wolf subspecies. To my knowledge, the Arctic Wolf is the only one that's visibly different, but even then, it's just fur color as far as I am aware. But truthfully, I am not particularly educated when it comes to canines.

In general, I am not opposed to TWYK tagging regarding species - I've been doing it myself so long as there's sufficient information from the author/sources AND it doesn't go against TWYS, but I do believe that there's such a thing as too much granularity and a lot of subspecies seem to be in that territory.

The ones that are significantly different wobble between subspecies and species and have their own tags- dingo, domestic_dog, and red_wolf. I don't think the arctic wolf is a great subspecies tag because in art, it looks like a white or pale wolf. That's a pretty common design choice which gets the tag applied to any white/pale wolf. On the flip side, people with characters that are canonically arctic wolves can be any color.

bugabond said:
I should have been more specific - I meant specifically Grey Wolf subspecies. To my knowledge, the Arctic Wolf is the only one that's visibly different, but even then, it's just fur color as far as I am aware. But truthfully, I am not particularly educated when it comes to canines.

Personally, when I think of "grey wolf" in the context of furry art, I think of "wolf-that-is-grey", but if a biologist or naturalist says "grey wolf", they might be referring to it's place in the formal taxonomy . Researching this for ten minutes (I like wolves and I was bored) it seems like the biological definition includes everything from poodles to dingos, if you take the broadest point of view. If you look at the wikipedia page for the species, you can see there is disagreement as to exactly how many subspecies there are, as you would expect in any science. We alias some to "wolf"; others, like coyotes and domestic dogs, we do not alias, which makes perfect sense to me.

I guess the question is do we do what we currently do for red wolves and arctic wolves and create an alias, as BigGrayWolf suggested, or take another look at the way we organize wolf sub-species using aliases? For what it's worth, this site's wiki for "Wolf" does have a breakdown of the subspecies that is tied to the formal taxonomy.

It seems a little unfair to alias away northwestern_wolf only, even though I don't personally use that tag, so I'm going to abstain on voting on this one. I would vote if there was a larger reorganization of wolf tags that makes sense, but that seems like a big job, and I don't think just adding an implication for "northwestern_wolf" to "wolf" and being done with it does any harm.

donkdewd said:
Personally, when I think of "grey wolf" in the context of furry art, I think of "wolf-that-is-grey", but if a biologist or naturalist says "grey wolf", they might be referring to it's place in the formal taxonomy . Researching this for ten minutes (I like wolves and I was bored) it seems like the biological definition includes everything from poodles to dingos, if you take the broadest point of view. If you look at the wikipedia page for the species, you can see there is disagreement as to exactly how many subspecies there are, as you would expect in any science. We alias some to "wolf"; others, like coyotes and domestic dogs, we do not alias, which makes perfect sense to me.

Canid taxonomy is a mess. Dogs are sometimes a subspecies of Grey Wolves, sometimes they're their own species (Canis familiaris, this is what I am used to personally, hence me forgetting they're sometimes counted as subspecies at all). Coyotes are very definitely NOT Grey Wolves, and Red Wolves are... weird. Wikipedia (if you follow the links from the article you linked to the page for Red Wolf specifically, you'll see that on THAT page it's considered a separate species!) and the sources I'm used to count it as a separate species as well. Encyclopedia of Life, however, does not.

I don't think northwestern wolf has any less validity than most other subspecies tags for Grey Wolves do, frankly, and I can see it being useful on the rare occasion a character is very definitively defined to be that particular subspecies, but it's all around kind of messy.

I'm sorry if my tagging history is full of incorrect species tagging. I was just trying to help.

bugabond said:
Canid taxonomy is a mess. Dogs are sometimes a subspecies of Grey Wolves, sometimes they're their own species (Canis familiaris, this is what I am used to personally, hence me forgetting they're sometimes counted as subspecies at all). Coyotes are very definitely NOT Grey Wolves, and Red Wolves are... weird. Wikipedia (if you follow the links from the article you linked to the page for Red Wolf specifically, you'll see that on THAT page it's considered a separate species!) and the sources I'm used to count it as a separate species as well. Encyclopedia of Life, however, does not.

I don't think northwestern wolf has any less validity than most other subspecies tags for Grey Wolves do, frankly, and I can see it being useful on the rare occasion a character is very definitively defined to be that particular subspecies, but it's all around kind of messy.

Totally agree - my takeaway is that it's a bit of a mess. You are right and I was wrong about coyotes (although they interbreed with wolves, which is part of the lineage of the red wolf, and the coywolf, so they are like donkey / horse close, I guess).

biggraywolf said:
I'm sorry if my tagging history is full of incorrect species tagging. I was just trying to help.

Don't worry - I read the e621 wiki and it does seem to imply we use implications for most subspecies to wolf. Northwestern wolf is a subspecies that is not listed, and obviously you were trying to help. Like we're saying, it's not a black and white thing. This is the break down from the e621 wiki:

The following tags are aliased to this tag: angel_wolf, angelic_wolf, black_wolf, gray_wolf, grey_wolf, ice_wolf_(species), lupine, merky_taiga_wolf, mobian_wolf, north_american_grey_wolf, saber_wolf, sabertooth_wolf, timber_wolf, timberwolf, white_wolf, whitewolf_(species), winged_wolf, wold, wolfess, wolfess_(species), wolfs, wolve, wolves (learn more).

This tag implicates canis (learn more).

The following tags implicate this tag: alaskan_tundra_wolf, arabian_wolf, arctic_wolf, eastern_wolf, eurasian_wolf, florida_black_wolf, himalayan_wolf, hokkaidō_wolf, iberian_wolf, indian_wolf, italian_wolf, japanese_wolf, mexican_wolf, mississippi_valley_wolf, red_wolf, sourou_cerulean_wolf, tundra_wolf, wolf_taur (learn more).

regsmutt said:
The ones that are significantly different wobble between subspecies and species and have their own tags- dingo, domestic_dog, and red_wolf. I don't think the arctic wolf is a great subspecies tag because in art, it looks like a white or pale wolf. That's a pretty common design choice which gets the tag applied to any white/pale wolf. On the flip side, people with characters that are canonically arctic wolves can be any color.

Well, what about when a character is obviously a polar_bear or obviously a spotted_hyena or whatever, and it isn't confirmed anywhere but it's obvious just by looking at them?

biggraywolf said:
Well, what about when a character is obviously a polar_bear or obviously a spotted_hyena or whatever, and it isn't confirmed anywhere but it's obvious just by looking at them?

I mean, it depends on what you consider obvious.
post #864886
You can compare the head shape and paw pads to a photo and go "yeah I'm reasonably sure this is supposed to be a polar bear."
You can't do the same here:
post #3871303
The white bear is basically identical to the brown bear in shape and really has little that resembles real bear proportions or anatomy. It can only be tagged as polar_bear instead of the generic tag bear because the artist called it a polar bear.

regsmutt said:
I mean, it depends on what you consider obvious.
post #864886
You can compare the head shape and paw pads to a photo and go "yeah I'm reasonably sure this is supposed to be a polar bear."
You can't do the same here:
post #3871303
The white bear is basically identical to the brown bear in shape and really has little that resembles real bear proportions or anatomy. It can only be tagged as polar_bear instead of the generic tag bear because the artist called it a polar bear.

Hmmmm…
I get what you're saying, but I feel like I'll take a bit of a break from this site.

Whether or not a species or subspecies can reliably be distinguished from another by visuals alone has never mattered for species tag implications before, so I don’t see why we’re getting hung up on that now. If we are gonna go down that path, good luck to whoever has to undo hundreds or thousands of existing implications, lol. The fact is that species tagging has always been informed by lore knowledge to some extent, as long as the character depicted matches what that species is expected to look like.

spe said:
Whether or not a species or subspecies can reliably be distinguished from another by visuals alone has never mattered for species tag implications before, so I don’t see why we’re getting hung up on that now. If we are gonna go down that path, good luck to whoever has to undo hundreds or thousands of existing implications, lol. The fact is that species tagging has always been informed by lore knowledge to some extent, as long as the character depicted matches what that species is expected to look like.

I'm convinced

spe said:
Whether or not a species or subspecies can reliably be distinguished from another by visuals alone has never mattered for species tag implications before, so I don’t see why we’re getting hung up on that now. If we are gonna go down that path, good luck to whoever has to undo hundreds or thousands of existing implications, lol. The fact is that species tagging has always been informed by lore knowledge to some extent, as long as the character depicted matches what that species is expected to look like.

I was more bringing it up because the claim that subspecies was 'obvious by looking' was made.
Subspecies I just think is largely useless. They're (mostly) not useful for searching or blacklisting and get misused a LOT, as seen with this tag, because some people assume 'more specific' is 'more correct' and try to apply twys to get there.

The tag implication northwestern_wolf -> wolf (forum #455184) has been approved by @spe.