Tag implication: cross necklace -> necklace

It's a cross on a necklace and already implicated cross too.

Shouldn't it imply pendant? (unless this tag applies to some rare variant of necklaces with multiple crosses on it)

S1eth said:

Shouldn't it imply pendant? (unless this tag applies to some rare variant of necklaces with multiple crosses on it)

The cross itself would be the pendant, so cross necklaces should implicate both.

CodeKyuubi said:

The cross itself would be the pendant, so cross necklaces should implicate both.

But then, would pendant imply necklace? Or do we distinguish between them?

S1eth said:

But then, would pendant imply necklace? Or do we distinguish between them?

Hmm, I can't think of any occasion where a pendant would be present without an accompanying necklace. Pendant would probably implicate necklace in that case, as the pendant is generally attached to the necklace, unlike a brooch.

Pendants are almost always found on necklaces, true, but the exceptions to the rule make any sort of pendant -> necklace implication seem to me like a Bad Idea. Danbooru has numerous instances of pendants hanging from chokers and collars, as well as a few odd instances of pendants suspended from clothing (e.g., post #2059381 or post #1430998, at stomach level) or things like bracelets (post #1515115) and nipple chains (post #1786812, questionable). The fact that pendants are implicated by locket adds an extra complication, as a locket is unambiguously a locket whether it's attached to a necklace or not. See post #1898141 or post #353082.

With regard to the original post, why stop at cross necklace? Consider a bulk implication that includes heart necklace, carrot necklace, etc. as well.