[REJECTED] Tag implication: facial_tattoo -> facial_mark

BUR #2190 has been rejected.

create implication facial_tattoo -> facial_mark

Reason: I've read the facial_mark wiki entry and tattoos are within the scope of its current definition.

EDIT: This bulk update request is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

EDIT: This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 60 days.

EDIT: The bulk update request #2190 (forum #161379) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

Do we actually need two tags for this? We don't have stomach_mark or leg_mark to go with stomach_tattoo and leg_tattoo

fossilnix said:

Do we actually need two tags for this? We don't have stomach_mark or leg_mark to go with stomach_tattoo and leg_tattoo

Counterpoint: markings on the stomach or legs are nowhere near as common as markings on the face, so it's no surprise that we don't have tags for them. Also, not all facial marks are tattoos; many are birthmarks like those of belldandy or caesar_anthonio_zeppeli. Roughly a quarter of posts tagged bindi are tagged facial_mark as well.

iridescent_slime said:

Also, not all facial marks are tattoos

But the question here is if all facial tattoos are facial marks. Meaning is the one a subset of the other (as the request suggests).

The implication request isn't mark -> tattoo.

Lacrimosa said:

But the question here is if all facial tattoos are facial marks. Meaning is the one a subset of the other (as the request suggests).

The implication request isn't mark -> tattoo.

I wasn't responding to the OP (I don't have a strong opinion about this implication request). My reply was specifically in response to fossilnix's questioning the need for two tags. The point I was making was that we can't just nuke facial_mark and use facial_tattoo for everything, because not all facial marks are tattoos.

facial_mark itself seems kind of arbitrary at the moment. Why aren't scratches or scrapes considered marks on the face? Would birthmarks be allowed - are they a scar or injury? What if a character has a tattoo that looks like a mole? I already see a number of posts where the markings are basically moles, but in a particular shape (star or teardrop, for instance). I also see posts where the facial markings are part of the character's biology - so is that any different from a mole or birthmark?

I would support this implication if facial_mark itself were better defined. For instance, if it was changed to say "artificial markings on the face that the character wasn't born or made with". Or if all the exceptions were removed and it was simply "any marking on the face". But as it stands, I don't want to link a very well-defined tag with a pretty nebulous one.

This bulk update request is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 60 days.

The bulk update request #2190 (forum #161379) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

Honestly I'm more inclined to alias facial tattoo to facial mark. I see few things that look like actual tattoos to me. Most look like they could just as well be facepaint or some other type of non-permanent marking.