evazion said: This is why horn should imply horns. Keeping them separate doesn't work, it requires splitting every horn tag into two different versions. It's also not consistent with how we treat other singular tags like single wing or single thighhigh.
Requesting the horn version first but if it's accepted I'll also request the same for fang/fangs.
There's no reason for these to be separated. This also causes problems with things like horns through headwear, fangs out, etc that cannot be implied because of mixups between the tags, which are currently kept separate.
Previous "discussions" in topic #16050 and topic #16062 (seems nobody wanted to really touch this topic before because of the size of the tags).
Due to site limitations (issue #4358) I cannot submit this request all at once - the rest will be created if this is approved:
alias horn -> single_horn imply single_horn -> horns
EDIT: This bulk update request is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.
I'm opposed to these ideas. I don't agree with putting them into the single_X naming scheme or implying them to the plural. It falsely gives the assumption that they should come in pairs, when the whole point of the division was to make sure that they were kept separate because they were not the same thing.
NWF_Renim said: the whole point of the division was to make sure that they were kept separate because they were not the same thing.
In what way are they not the same thing? They both depict a horned character. Only difference is the count of horns. The same argument can be made for any other single_* tag. Specially distinct horn types, like for example elma's, can be tagged with the appropriate specific tag, and even then we currently don't have tags to distinguish special horns like quetzalcoatl's so there's not really an argument to be made there.
Furthermore a large amount of horn posts look like they should have the oni horn/oni horns tags instead, which shouldn't even be tagged with horn (another endlessly debated thing but that'll have to be raised in another topic). There's 2k posts under horn ~oni_horn ~oni. Even most of those that aren't tagged with oni horn or oni (horn -oni_horn -oni, ~17k posts) look like oni horns. The ones that don't look like oni horns are either character-specific variants like the already linked maidragon characters, or single horns that would be visually identical to their twin counterpart, like post #3825048, post #3600100 or post #3596233.
There's also many posts of animals and pokemons like goldeen, and many, many mistags due to the fact that "horn" is easily mistyped as "horns" or misclicked in the autocomplete dropdown. In fact it's easier to find posts that don't quality for the horn tag in its own search.
And that's without even thinking about posts like post #3162241. Or post #3836292 and similar where the other horn is covered. Do we tag that as horn or horns? There's only one horn visible, you have to have knowledge of the character from outside the picture to know she has two horns. This becomes needlessly complicated if the two tags are kept separate.
Only relevant discussion I've found was topic #5124 where the alias horn -> horns was removed, and it has nothing to do with the visual part of it - it was removed because someone was mistaking single_horn with unicorn. The precedent for it was fang at the time, but that's the other one of these two tags that have caused tons of the above mentioned problems.
And as mentioned above, this distinction prevents us from implying tags such as horn ribbon, horn_ornament, horn grab etc to horn/horns, which causes even more mistag problems.
I don't have a strong opinion on horn vs horns here. If the alias is removed I think bringing single_horn back as a tag is a good solution.
I do disagree with the possible followup though:
nonamethanks said:
...if it's accepted I'll also request the same for fang/fangs.
on account of the arguments made in topic #1202 on account of keeping them separate and the decision made there. One cute little fang is almost always drawn for a different meaning and has a different thematic feeling than a set of two. I think it's worth preserving both tags to keep them separate. It's not quite the same, but it's a similar argument for why we keep knee_up and knees_up separate.
Going to go ahead and remove the alias. Whether this is for later implication to horns or not, at minimum switching to a single_horn naming scheme will reduce accidental tagging of horns as horn.
As for attempts to try and implicate fang to fangs, regardless of the naming used going to have to stick with that from a thematic depiction they're quite different so going to stand firm with not supporting any implication attempts between these two tags.
Missing implications. Only picked the tags with 50+ posts. Also created missing wiki pages.
Should be noted, that the horn_ornament wiki states that the tag can be used for both horns and antlers. If this implication is to be made, then the tag should be cleaned up first.
Should be noted, that the horn_ornament wiki states that the tag can be used for both horns and antlers. If this implication is to be made, then the tag should be cleaned up first.
I was gonna remove those, but then I realized there's some cases under horns_through_headwear antlers, asymmetrical_horns antlers, fake_horns antlers etc too. Do we create a new antler tag for every version? It should be noted that dragon horns already implies horns, and that has A LOT of antlers posts, which was raised as a point in topic #9834 as an argument to creating dragon_antlers. But it seems albert approved it anyway in topic #11537. The alternative would be treating antlers as a subset of horns.
I was gonna remove those, but then I realized there's some cases under horns_through_headwear antlers, asymmetrical_horns antlers, fake_horns antlers etc too. Do we create a new antler tag for every version? It should be noted that dragon horns already implies horns, and that has A LOT of antlers posts, which was raised as a point in topic #9834 as an argument to creating dragon_antlers. But it seems albert approved it anyway in topic #11537. The alternative would be treating antlers as a subset of horns.
I really would not like antlers to be a subset of horns. While similar, real horns do not branch at all. The only exception to that you'll find is with pronghorns, but their "horn" is not a true horn and something that is between horns and antlers and because they're temporary like antlers I'd be more inclined that if such a image existed that it'd make more sense to put them in the antler category for being branched and being temporary.
Ok, we already had antler ornament so I moved the posts that had antlers over there instead, and moved a bunch of other posts I've found in the other tags. Same for fake antlers. Now they should be clear.
