Tag implication: oni_horns -> horns

create implication oni_horns -> horns

Link to implication

Subset

Just have to make sure there is no issue with fleshy "horns" being tagged horns as well. Example: post #1672024.

I'd say oni_horns should be exclusively used for one specific style of horns.

We shouldn't tag all horns oni_horns just because the character happens to be an oni.
Tagging all of them would just make oni horns be a redundant copy of horns + oni.

We don't even tag many of the characters oni, just like we don't tag vampire if the only indication is the canon.
All according to "tag what you see".

BTW, we have a horns tag and a horn (singular) tag.

S1eth said:

We shouldn't tag all horns oni_horns just because the character happens to be an oni.

But that is exactly what defines them as oni_horns.

Tagging all of them would just make oni horns be a redundant copy of horns + oni.

Sure, as it should be.

In that case, the tag should not exist.

S1eth said:

BTW, we have a horns tag and a horn (singular) tag.

Yeah, and if oni_horns also applies to a single oni-style horn as in post #2059931 then an implication would be bad.

The most stereotypical oni horns that I'm familiar with are those that are like lum's. Not sure if those are common on other types of monster/demon characters, but if we can settle on one style that would be the style probably best to go with.

As for the fleshy kind, might be worthwhile spinning those off into their own tag. It is a common enough horn style.

NWF_Renim said:

The most stereotypical oni horns that I'm familiar with are those that are like lum's. Not sure if those are common on other types of monster/demon characters, but if we can settle on one style that would be the style probably best to go with.

As for the fleshy kind, might be worthwhile spinning those off into their own tag. It is a common enough horn style.

The former (like Lum) would be Type B in the chart post #1285148, and the latter (fleshy) Type A. But they are rather distinct from each other so I could get behind separate tags if we can decide on something.

EB said:

Yeah, and if oni_horns also applies to a single oni-style horn as in post #2059931 then an implication would be bad.

So, do we need the new tag oni_horn ?

Schrobby said:

So, do we need the new tag oni_horn ?

If that tag was created it should be named single_oni_horn to make it more clear.

EB said:

The former (like Lum) would be Type B in the chart post #1285148, and the latter (fleshy) Type A. But they are rather distinct from each other so I could get behind separate tags if we can decide on something.

There is also something like post #2055810...

Toks said:

If that tag was created it should be named single_oni_horn to make it more clear.

True. While we're at it we could also rename horn to single_horn and add multiple_horns for instances such as post #2055810.

It shouldn't be necessary to create a single_oni_horn tag when the horn/single_horn tag can simply be used in conjunction with the oni_horns tag. One tag that defines the type of horn and the other that defines the quantity of horns.

The tag implication oni_horns -> horns has been rejected.