[APPROVED] More cookie implications

BUR #2133 has been approved by @Hillside_Moose.

create implication chocolate_chip_cookie -> cookie
create implication jam_cookie -> cookie
create implication sandwich_cookie -> cookie
create implication thumbprint_cookie -> cookie

Reason: While cleaning up biscuit, I discovered that several well-populated cookie type tags don't have implications as checkerboard_cookie does. These should be all be self-explanatory as they are all cookies by definition.

I thought about adding a jam_cookie -> thumbprint_cookie implication but I'm not too sure about this. The definition we're using now suggests that it's a subset, but do heart-shaped cutouts like in post #705667 really count as "thumbprints"?

There's also the possibility of a gingerbread_man -> cookie implication as these are cookies too, but the gingerbread_man tag is also used for Christmas ornaments and various charms and accessories, and I'm not sure that we want to tag these as cookies.

EDIT: The bulk update request #2133 (forum #160286) has been approved by @Hillside_Moose.

While we're at it, should oreo imply sandwich_cookie?

Arcana55 said:

While we're at it, should oreo imply sandwich_cookie?

No, for the same reason budweiser doesn't imply beer. The oreo tag can be used for the product's branding and packaging even when no cookies are visible (post #1194344).

iridescent_slime said:

No, for the same reason budweiser doesn't imply beer. The oreo tag can be used for the product's branding and packaging even when no cookies are visible (post #1194344).

If we tag appearances of the branding, even in absence of the product, then shouldn't they be copyright tags? Maybe I'm thinking about the copyright category too literally.

Also, in your example post, there are clearly oreo cookies pictured on the side of the box. If we say, "No, that doesn't count, since it's just an image of a cookie, not an actual cookie," does that not lead down a meta rabbit hole? I mean, how could a Danbooru post possibly have an actual cookie? "Ceci n'est pas un oreo", if you will.

Arcana55 said:

If we tag appearances of the branding, even in absence of the product, then shouldn't they be copyright tags? Maybe I'm thinking about the copyright category too literally.

Generally, a “copyrighted name” becomes a copyright tag when at least one character belongs to it. For example, if Oreo created an official “Oreo-tan” character, oreo would be turned into a copyright tag. If a need to distinguish between the “Oreo series” and the “Oreo thing” arose, a tag like oreo_(cookie) would be created for the latter.

Arcana55 said:

If we tag appearances of the branding, even in absence of the product, then shouldn't they be copyright tags? Maybe I'm thinking about the copyright category too literally.

That's really a subject for another thread, but our current policy is to only use copyright tags for trademarks that have associated characters. It was discussed to death in topic #2075.

Also, in your example post, there are clearly oreo cookies pictured on the side of the box. If we say, "No, that doesn't count, since it's just an image of a cookie, not an actual cookie," does that not lead down a meta rabbit hole? I mean, how could a Danbooru post possibly have an actual cookie? "Ceci n'est pas un oreo", if you will.

There are some taggers here who are known to tag images this way, tagging every single object depicted on a poster or television screen or t-shirt print. I, for one, refuse to use tag like this, because all it does is add noise to search results. If I'm searching for an image with a frying pan in it, I don't want to see post #2866201.

Even if we did tag cookies-on-packages as cookie, though, oreo still wouldn't implicate anything. Regardless of how you feel about the other example, post #1294600 clearly has no visible cookies of any sort.

The bulk update request #2133 (forum #160286) has been approved by @Hillside_Moose.