Danbooru

Brooches implications

Posted under Tags

I agree we could just alias instead of implicating to get rid of the coloured brooch tags. However until someone does that this implication request should be approved so we dont have a bunch of coloured brooches that arent tagged with brooch.

BUR #8580 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

create implication heart_brooch -> brooch
create implication star_brooch -> brooch
create implication wing_brooch -> brooch

Implications missing from above, plus a bunny -> rabbit alias. I also created wing brooch since I spotted some designs like that in my own upload history.

I want to ask if it would be fine to make brooch tags related to basic shapes like circle_brooch, oval_brooch, rectangle_brooch (post #1844705) and so on, or if that's not necessary. I do agree that colored brooches should be aliased to the brooch tag since they could refer to either the color of the brooch itself or the gem embedded in it, which can easily cause mistagging when we have tags for the gemstone types.

I'm also confused about tagging instances like post #1887685, where one shape is inside another. Would this count as a heart brooch since the shape is present, or a circle brooch since that's the brooch's actual shape? Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but I don't want to vandalize such posts without understanding what the consensus is first.

ion288 said:

I agree we could just alias instead of implicating to get rid of the coloured brooch tags. However until someone does that this implication request should be approved so we dont have a bunch of coloured brooches that arent tagged with brooch.

Accepting implications for bad tags is an implicit approval of their existence, which is why BURs like these usually are just left to die instead.

1