Danbooru

Sorting out wedding_ring and wedding_band

Posted under Tags

BUR #11416 has been rejected.

remove implication wedding_ring -> ring
create implication wedding_ring -> wedding_band

Wedding bands are wedding rings.
It makes sense to be able to search for ornate rings specifically (not that you'd be able to, as wedding ring is filled with wedding bands because they're synonyms anywhere outside of danbooru and we like to shoot ourselves in the foot), but at the end of the day trying to keep them separate is just not going to work.

BUR #11417 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

mass update wedding_ring -> ornate_ring wedding_ring
create alias wedding_band -> wedding_ring

A different proposal, and the one I'd prefer, because it allows us to use the tag on all kind of ornate rings, not just the ones worn as wedding rings. This will also allow us to make wedding ring the main tag name for wedding band. Because, you know, they're wedding rings.
This would also allow us to alias engagement ring (topic #21750) to wedding band/wedding ring.

Your engagement ring can be your wedding ring, if you want. There's not really any specific criteria for what either ring looks like, either. An engagement ring is only really taggable by context, otherwise it would just get tagged ring or wedding ring.

I don't really agree with the second BUR, because wedding rings, especially those worn by the men, are very often not "ornate". The most recognizable stereotypical wedding ring is just a simple gold ring. post #5526399

Edit: Just realized I read all the relevant posts and wikis and then apparently retained none of it. All I've actually shared is proof that users are just tagging wedding bands with wedding ring. I'm still not keen on aliasing away wedding ring, though.

Updated

blindVigil said:

I don't really agree with the second BUR, because wedding rings, especially those worn by the men, are very often not "ornate". The most recognizable stereotypical wedding ring is just a simple gold ring. post #5526399

I'm not sure I understand your argument. My proposal stems from the fact that wedding rings and wedding bands are the same thing outside of danbooru, so I'd rather we call ornate rings "ornate ring" instead of "wedding ring", and use "wedding band"/"wedding ring" for any kind of wedding ring. Men's rings would just be tagged with wedding band/ring in that case, it would not affect ornate ring unless they are ornate.

blindVigil said:

Your engagement ring can be your wedding ring, if you want. There's not really any specific criteria for what either ring looks like, either. An engagement ring is only really taggable by context, otherwise it would just get tagged ring or wedding ring.

Makes sense.
As for the BURs…
In the case of the first, I don't get the removal of implication of wedding ring, to ring. All wedding rings, are rings, after all.
As for the second, I don't get the mechanics of it, so I can't comment.
Wedding bands are a (plain) type of wedding ring, certainly. Tagging "non-band" wedding rings, as wedding ring and ornate ring (and all of them, as ring), makes sense to me.
Tagging them as ornate rings, [/i]instead[/u] of wedding ring, however…
There are tons of ornate rings, that aren't wedding rings. There is a big difference between an ornate wedding ring, and an ornate ring, that isn't a wedding ring. (if it isn't clear which it is, from the image/context, then the image should, of course, only be tagged with ornate ring)

zarlan said:

In the case of the first, I don't get the removal of implication of wedding ring, to ring. All wedding rings, are rings, after all.

wedding band already implies ring, so it would be a redundant implication.

Tagging them as ornate rings, [/i]instead[/u] of wedding ring, however…
There are tons of ornate rings, that aren't wedding rings. There is a big difference between an ornate wedding ring, and an ornate ring, that isn't a wedding ring. (if it isn't clear which it is, from the image/context, then the image should, of course, only be tagged with ornate ring)

That's why I want the two tags to be separate:

nonamethanks said:

wedding band already implies ring, so it would be a redundant implication.

Ah, I see. Makes sense.

BTW… does the second BUR mean that all images currently tagged as wedding ring, would end up with wedding ring and ornate ring, which are then two separate tags? (which, surely, should then be followed up by making wedding band, an alias of wedding ring?)

zarlan said:

Ah, I see. Makes sense.

BTW… does the second BUR mean that all images currently tagged as wedding ring, would end up with wedding ring and ornate ring, which are then two separate tags? (which, surely, should then be followed up by making wedding band, an alias of wedding ring?)

Hmm, I'll change the BUR to be more clear.

For the second BUR, would it perhaps be better to make gemstone_ring -> ornate_ring be an implication? Ornate is such a broad term that it could readily cover intricate patterned and decorated rings without gemstones. It would probably be worthwhile to have some means of being able to separate ornate rings with gemstones from those without gemstones.

NWF_Renim said:

For the second BUR, would it perhaps be better to make gemstone_ring -> ornate_ring be an implication? Ornate is such a broad term that it could readily cover intricate patterned and decorated rings without gemstones. It would probably be worthwhile to have some means of being able to separate ornate rings with gemstones from those without gemstones.

That makes sense to me, I removed that line. I'll clean up ornate ring from all the random plain rings once it goes through, and I suppose we'll see then how big it is and how much of it is ornate rings without gemstones.

1