Tag implication: repair_bucket -> bucket

create implication repair_bucket -> bucket

Link to implication

The repair bucket is a bucket.

This kind of implication shouldn't be done for specific series items like this. What if there's a parody adapting it into a different kind of object?

You have post #2177322 which are pudding cups instead of buckets.

Also, "X_Y is an X Y" reasons are bad and you should feel bad.

The tag implication repair_bucket -> bucket has been rejected.

Hillside_Moose said:

Also, "X_Y is an X Y" reasons are bad and you should feel bad.

What?

So how else are you going to do implications like in topic #13194

kuuderes_shadow said:

What?

So how else are you going to do implications like in topic #13194

Well it didn't work here, did it?

If the implication really is obvious, I'll let it slide. If not, I'll call it out for the lazy, boilerplate reason that it is, alongside "Obvious" and "[REASON FIELD INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]". It just tells me whoever submitted the implication didn't bother checking the tags for exceptions and is passing the buck to someone else.

Hillside_Moose said:

Well it didn't work here, did it?

If the implication really is obvious, I'll let it slide. If not, I'll call it out for the lazy, boilerplate reason that it is, alongside "Obvious" and "[REASON FIELD INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]". It just tells me whoever submitted the implication didn't bother checking the tags for exceptions and is passing the buck to someone else.

In other words:
When the implication is right you'll be generous and let it slide - but one should still feel ashamed of it, even though any other reason given would be worse/pointlessly convoluted.
When the implication turns out to be not right due to something the person making the implication didn't think of then it's suddenly unforgivable.

Am I really reading you right here?

Incidentally, I did check before making this implication, and would still describe your exception as a bucket, just as I would post #2364987 where they are filled with ice cream. I accept the implication is invalid due to the potential for it to be adapted into something that is not a bucket, which I confess to not thinking of, but there are no examples of this at present, so is it really something worthy of shame?