alias *_lipstick -> *_lips

BUR #4221 has been approved by @evazion.

Let's try this again.
Previously discussed in topic #15876. It's impossible to tell apart lipstick vs normal colored lips, and we shouldn't be tagging individual colored lipstick tubes anyway, for which there's already lipstick tube.

Only question is what to do with lipstick itself, which implies all of these colored lipstick tags. I'd say nuke it, or turn it into something like nail polish, where it's used only when it's clear something is lipstick, in combination with colored lips tags. Specific tags like lipstick mark and lipstick ring can stay, but we don't need stuff like specific lipstick ring tags, for example.

Evazion proposed a colored lips tag in the previous topic. Aliasing lipstick to it would be an option, though we'd have to keep pink lips separated from it, but I'm not 100% sold on the idea given that I've seen some people mistag lipstick tube as lipstick before.

BUR #4222 has been approved by @evazion.

create implication lipstick_tube -> cosmetics

Also throwing this in as a bonus.

The resolution of topic #16124 supports the first BUR, I'm behind it all the way for the reasons mentioned. No real opinion on the second one though.

The bulk update request #4222 (forum #177582) has been approved by @evazion.

If we decide to proceed with this alias request, then we first need to remove all of the *_lipstick -> lipstick implications. Lipstick currently implies makeup and we probably don't want it added to every *_lips post.

As for the lipstick tag, I think that it's better to keep it.
First, for posts where something was written or drawn with lipstick, e.g. post #4211660, post #4072998, post #2841276, post #3168092, post #322469. I guess with could make lipstick_writing/lipstick_drawing tag, but the more general lipstick could still be useful.
And second, as an umbrella tag for other lipstick tags like lipstick_mark, lipstick_ring, smeared_lipstick, and possible lipstick_writing.

If we decide to use lipstick as an umbrella tag, then we probably would need to remove the lipstick -> makeup implication. Which BTW is something I've thought about before, in my opinion makeup should be reserved for post where makeup is particularly notable.

BUR #4235 has been rejected.

remove implication lipstick -> makeup

MyrMindservant said:

If we decide to proceed with this alias request, then we first need to remove all of the *_lipstick -> lipstick implications. Lipstick currently implies makeup and we probably don't want it added to every *_lips post.

Added the unimplications to the BUR.

As for the lipstick tag, I think that it's better to keep it.
First, for posts where something was written or drawn with lipstick, e.g. post #4211660, post #4072998, post #2841276, post #3168092, post #322469. I guess with could make lipstick_writing/lipstick_drawing tag, but the more general lipstick could still be useful.
And second, as an umbrella tag for other lipstick tags like lipstick_mark, lipstick_ring, smeared_lipstick, and possible lipstick_writing.

I've created lipstick writing. Need help populating it though.

lipstick can be used for when actual lipstick is 100% visible and not ambiguous, but the question remains of what to do with the 34k posts currently tagged with it that simply got pulled by the colored lipstick tags that people used instead of *_lips.

@nonamethanks
It looks like you forgot about black_lipstick and black_lips in your original BUR.

Also, you probably didn't notice the edit to my previous post. Lipstick -> makeup implication would have to be removed as a part of the second BUR for it to work.

Edit:

I've created lipstick writing. Need help populating it though.

Did what I could, at least for now.

Could it be important to separate the implication removals and aliases? I'm not sure how the order of operations works with BURs, but if the aliases go through before the removals then those tags might be added regardless.

MyrMindservant said:

Also, you probably didn't notice the edit to my previous post. Lipstick -> makeup implication would have to be removed as a part of the second BUR for it to work.

If we keep the lipstick tag for when it's actually noticeable that it's lipstick then it can still imply makeup.
Lipstick marks make it obvious it's not just colored lips, for example.

Obstetrics said:

Could it be important to separate the implication removals and aliases? I'm not sure how the order of operations works with BURs, but if the aliases go through before the removals then those tags might be added regardless.

The order *should* be respected since BURs are sequential.

nonamethanks said:

If we keep the lipstick tag for when it's actually noticeable that it's lipstick then it can still imply makeup.
Lipstick marks make it obvious it's not just colored lips, for example.

That's not my concern. Makeup tag is defined as "Any type of makeup worn on the face."
We can have a character with lipstick marks all over his/her body, but no makeup on the face, or face not visible. Or posts with lipstick_writing, but no makeup on the character.

And I think that we need a better description for lipstick_writing. Its wiki currently says "Text written with lipstick", but things other than text can be written/drawn too, like post #2710965, post #633505, post #2419566, post #163133.

MyrMindservant said:

That's not my concern. Makeup tag is defined as "Any type of makeup worn on the face."
We can have a character with lipstick marks all over his/her body, but no makeup on the face, or face not visible. Or posts with lipstick_writing, but no makeup on the character.

Ah, yeah, in that case I'll add the unimplication to the second BUR.

And I think that we need a better description for lipstick_writing. Its wiki currently says "Text written with lipstick", but things other than text can be written/drawn too, like post #2710965, post #633505, post #2419566, post #163133.

Sure, feel free to expand the definition.

nonamethanks said:

remove implication lipstick -> makeup

-1 Why is this being done again? You're removing all of the "COLOR_lipstick -> lipstick" implications in the first BUR, so the COLOR_lips tags will not automatically be populated with the makeup tag. Lipstick is makeup. Q.E.D.

BrokenEagle98 said:

-1 Why is this being done again? You're removing all of the "COLOR_lipstick -> lipstick" implications in the first BUR, so the COLOR_lips tags will not automatically be populated with the makeup tag. Lipstick is makeup. Q.E.D.

Did you even read everything in this thread? The removal of that implication has nothing to do with the color_lips tags.

MyrMindservant said:

Makeup tag is defined as "Any type of makeup worn on the face."
We can have a character with lipstick marks all over his/her body, but no makeup on the face, or face not visible. Or posts with lipstick_writing, but no makeup on the character.

blindVigil said:

Did you even read everything in this thread? The removal of that implication has nothing to do with the color_lips tags.

I'm sure all makeup could be used in places besides the face. Lipstick's primary use... in fact it's only official use, is for the lips. Nothing else. I stand by my original statement.

Also, nice way to escalate the heat of this topic with your first statement. You should really learn how to communicate better. Reply if you want to get the last word or whatever, but I won't be rechecking this thread.

MyrMindservant said:

Makeup tag is defined as "Any type of makeup worn on the face."

To be honest this sentence could be interpreted in two different ways. Either as "Any type of makeup (usually) worn on the face." or "Any type of makeup (that is currently) worn on the face.", not sure which version is the better one but I'm slightly leaning towards the first.

The bulk update request #4221 (forum #177578) has been approved by @evazion.

Unbreakable said:

To be honest this sentence could be interpreted in two different ways. Either as "Any type of makeup (usually) worn on the face." or "Any type of makeup (that is currently) worn on the face.", not sure which version is the better one but I'm slightly leaning towards the first.

I wrote that line in the wiki, although the definition has always been some variation of "wearing makeup on the face". The intent is that makeup is for characters actually wearing makeup and cosmetics is for makeup products, like lipstick tubes or nail polish bottles.

Note that nail polish is a cosmetic product but it doesn't imply makeup because it's not worn on the face. So I'd say that if it's not worn on the face, it shouldn't be tagged makeup.

As for removing lipstick -> makeup, I promise you if we do this we'll end up with majority of people not tagging makeup on characters legitimately wearing lipstick. This is what happens every time we remove an implication like this. See for example how school swimsuit doesn't imply one-piece swimsuit (because we wanted nontraditional school swimsuit to imply school swimsuit instead), which just resulted in thousands of valid posts missing the one-piece swimsuit tag.

It comes down to a question of whether you want to be able to search makeup and find all characters wearing makeup, or search lipstick and find other stuff like lipstick mark. To me you can just as easily search lipstick mark if that's what you want.

Also I want to mention that I think pink lipstick / pink lips is heavily overused. Pink is a normal color for lips, in a lot of cases people are tagging pink lips when the character isn't wearing lipstick and there's nothing noteworthy about their lips.

evazion said:

As for removing lipstick -> makeup, I promise you if we do this we'll end up with majority of people not tagging makeup on characters legitimately wearing lipstick. This is what happens every time we remove an implication like this. See for example how school swimsuit doesn't imply one-piece swimsuit (because we wanted nontraditional school swimsuit to imply school swimsuit instead), which just resulted in thousands of valid posts missing the one-piece swimsuit tag.

Yeah this is a good point. I'm not so sure of that part of the BUR myself anymore. I'll separate the lipstick implications from it so that they can be approved by themselves.

BUR #4660 has been rejected.

create implication lipstick_ring -> lipstick
create implication lipstick_mark -> lipstick
create implication lipstick_writing -> lipstick

As above