Posted under Tags
The bulk update request #8509 has been rejected.
create implication green_brooch -> brooch
create implication flower_brooch -> brooch
create implication blue_brooch -> brooch
create implication skull_brooch -> brooch
create implication red_brooch -> brooch
create implication purple_brooch -> brooch
create implication orange_brooch -> brooch
All brooches
Why are we tagging brooch color? We should be tagging the color of the gem itself at most. I guess this goes back to topic #17531, which went nowhere.
nonamethanks said:
We should be tagging the color of the gem itself at most.
this
When I first learnt of this tag, and looked up green brooch, I overwhelmingly found "green jewelled brooches". I don't see a reason to distinguish a jewelled brooch from non-jewelled brooches. Henceforth, I consider a brooch with a green jewel to be a green brooch
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.
The bulk update request #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.
This bulk update request is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.
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.
Benit149 said:
The bulk update request #8580 has been approved by @nonamethanks.
create implication heart_brooch -> brooch
create implication star_brooch -> brooch
create implication wing_brooch -> brooch
Several of those rabbit brooch things aren't brooches at all. They don't have a gem.
nonamethanks said:
Several of those rabbit brooch things aren't brooches at all. They don't have a gem.
I removed the rabbit_brooch requests.
As for your question about heart brooches vs circle brooches, what we want to tag (and what people are going to remember and search for) is the predominant shape. post #1887685 is a heart brooch.
The bulk update request #8580 (forum #203959) has been approved by @nonamethanks.
This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 45 days.
The bulk update request #8509 (forum #203585) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.
