[REJECTED] Tag implication: chromatic_aberration_abuse -> chromatic_aberration

create implication chromatic_aberration_abuse -> chromatic_aberration

Link to implication

EDIT: This tag implication is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

EDIT: The tag implication chromatic_aberration_abuse -> chromatic_aberration (forum #151883) has been rejected by @Type-kun.

Previous related discussion in topic #13958

The conclusion was to turn chromatic_aberration_abuse into a pool but it seems noone actually ever bothered to do this.

skylightcrystal said:

Previous related discussion in topic #13958

The conclusion was to turn chromatic_aberration_abuse into a pool but it seems noone actually ever bothered to do this.

+1 for a pool.

This tag implication is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

The tag implication chromatic_aberration_abuse -> chromatic_aberration (forum #151883) has been rejected by @Type-kun.

Moved to pool #14571.

In light of this change, should lens_flare_abuse be turned into a pool as well?

EDIT: Or should they just all be combined into the same pool as chromatic_aberration_abuse, and call it "Effects Abuse" or something like that?

lens flare abuse is more objective, it has to do with people placing excessive lens flares regardless of the light source in the picture. Most of our chromatic aberration posts, on the other hand, aren't any more or less realistic than each other, making abuse trickier to define.
"Chromatic Aberration Abuse", as it stands, needs refinement. The description seems to define it as both "effects use that hurts the eyes" and "effects use that is lazy and bad", and that results in a muddled selection of posts. There's both things like post #1914210, which is clearly using eye strain as a purposeful theme, and post #3259580, which could be considered gratuitous but doesn't hurt at all.