Gem implications

BUR #3734 has been rejected.

Making the gemstones implicate gem. Any of them not with the qualifier (gemstone) are given it to make it neat. I have probably missed some of them.

Are these tags ever used (or could they be used) for eg. veins in rocks? Because I wouldn't consider such things to be gems. Obsidian has obsidian rock but none of the others do.

I doubt there will be much art of gemstone veins. Most pictures of mines/mining have the cartoonishly large, bright, glowing, probably magic crystals like post #880290. Minecraft textures use the gemstone colors just embedded in the stone texture. Obsidian is fairly unique because it has such a wide usage besides gemstones. Unless people start tagging diamond and corundum saws.

I'm going out on a limb here, but I think none of these tags should exist. Instead we should have red_gem, green_gem, blue_gem etc.

In general, color alone is insufficient to identify a species of gemstone. A professional mineralogist or serious hobbyist has to rely on things like crystal habit, cleavage, fracture, etc. However, color is the only criteria available when tagging pictures. (Shape seldom coming into play, usually only for pearls). That means tagging something green_gem is more accurate than emerald_(gemstone) or phosphophyllite_(gemstone), which respectively makes an assumption (that every green gem is an emerald) and relies on outside information such as character associations

Arcana55 said:

I'm going out on a limb here, but I think none of these tags should exist. Instead we should have red_gem, green_gem, blue_gem etc.

This is something that has irked me for quite a while. There are a handful of posts like post #3789417 and post #3820113 where the stones are tagged because they are identified by the artist, which is fine. Then there are the steven_universe and houseki_no_kuni posts where the stones are tagged because they're linked to the characters, even though this kind of tagging has long been discouraged. And then there are hundreds and hundreds of posts where the stones amount to pure guesswork by taggers. The stone in post #3384055 could be garnet or red spinel or carnelian or any other red-orange gem-quality mineral, but it's tagged as a ruby. Why?

There are a few stones that can be identified in a drawing by properties other than color — amber and lapis lazuli often have distinctive inclusions, and opals and pearls are known for their iridescence — but these are exceptions. If someone wants to search for a red gem, they should search for red_gem, not ruby_(gemstone). The same goes for the other gemstones that act as stereotypical representatives of their colors: amethyst, emerald, sapphire, topaz. Tropes are not a sound basis for a tagging system.

Arcana55 said:

I'm going out on a limb here, but I think none of these tags should exist. Instead we should have red_gem, green_gem, blue_gem etc.

In general, color alone is insufficient to identify a species of gemstone. A professional mineralogist or serious hobbyist has to rely on things like crystal habit, cleavage, fracture, etc. However, color is the only criteria available when tagging pictures. (Shape seldom coming into play, usually only for pearls). That means tagging something green_gem is more accurate than emerald_(gemstone) or phosphophyllite_(gemstone), which respectively makes an assumption (that every green gem is an emerald) and relies on outside information such as character associations

I don't have issue consolidating most of them with <color>_gem tags, but there are some of these tags that should exist. pearl_(gemstone) and amber_(gemstone) should exist because of their unique nature that makes them clearly unlike the others and visibly identifiable.

Additionally the diamond_(gemstone) tag is not defined by a specific color and is defined as crystals that have been cut for the purpose of jewelry.

Arcana55 said:

I'm going out on a limb here, but I think none of these tags should exist. Instead we should have red_gem, green_gem, blue_gem etc.

I would be fine with generalized <color>_gem tags, but I still think that specifications are needed. We have many tags for specific flowers, in addition to the <color>_flower tags, and I'm sure many people (including me), cannot tell the difference between most flowers enough to name them.

This is in addition to gems being variable in color and shape. The most popular gems are well known enough to the general public that even if someone who doesn't know about specific gravity and streak and fracture sees a dark blue gem, they can tag it sapphire. I'm guessing that if these ones were nuked, people would create them again. The gems that are much more specific are pretty much exclusive to SU and HnK, and they might want to see the gemstone in contexts other than the character.

Holy crap I complained about gem tags in chat about a month ago.

create implication[...]

The general gem tag has almost four times as many posts as all of these named tags combined. I absolutely abhor the lack of color_gem tags, though as mentioned some posts explicitly identify names.

Tropes are not a sound basis for a tagging system.

A month ago I made up black gemstone tag. If you dare go calling it onyx (no tag) or obsidian_(gemstone) (3 unique posts but one looks purple), then I'm gonna come over and slap you around a bit with a large trout.

+1 To consolidating gems to color tags (if necessary) and/or specific gem names when clearly identifiable, either by their unique characteristics or when identified by the artist. This means the identity of the gem doesn't require meta information from outside the picture, like character A always wear gem of type X.

To be honest, I'm not sure COLOR_gem tags should be a thing either, since they aren't as relevant as an article of clothing or the attribute of a character. I remember COLOR_earrings being axed for much the same reason (topic #17213).

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 #3734 (forum #174721) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

What colors would be recommend that we use if we migrate these over to <color>_gem tags?

Basic colors

• Blue
• Red
• Green
• Yellow
• Purple
• Orange
• Black
• White
• Pink

Others possible colors

• Colorless?
• Aqua?

Colorless sounds good, and I also suggest multicolored/rainbow. I don't like aqua tags at all but even if we decide against an aqua tag here in this thread, people are still going to use it anyway so we might as well have it.

Also, how should we tag them? Potentially, we could use color_gem, color_crystal, color_gemstone, or color_precious_stone (or something else, feel free to make a suggestion if you have something better). I'm personally against color_gem and color_crystal since we already use gem and crystal for differently cut precious stones, so we'd either have to use neither or both (and using two different sets of color tags for essentially the same thing is just inconvenient for tagging and searching alike).

+1 I like COLOR_gemstone.

It's different from the tag gem and crystal, so we won't have to worry (hopefully) about future implication requests, and AFAIK gemstone applies to both.

Yes to aqua and multicolored. Instead of colorless, might I suggest transparent. We have no colorless_* tags, but a ton of transparent_* tags.

BrokenEagle98 said:

+1 I like COLOR_gemstone.

It's different from the tag gem and crystal, so we won't have to worry (hopefully) about future implication requests, and AFAIK gemstone applies to both.

Yes to aqua and multicolored. Instead of colorless, might I suggest transparent. We have no colorless_* tags, but a ton of transparent_* tags.

I was thinking about "transparent", but considering that a gem can be both transparent and colored, I wasn't sure. "Colorless" or "clear" are used much more often in the gem world. For example: diamond , quartz , corundum .

thelieutenant said:

I was thinking about "transparent", but considering that a gem can be both transparent and colored, I wasn't sure. "Colorless" or "clear" are used much more often in the gem world. For example: diamond , quartz , corundum .

How about also adding an alias of:

1. colorless_gem -> transparent_gem
or
2. transparent_gem -> colorless_gem

I think #1 is better for most users, but #2 may be more accurate according to thelieutenant. I'm fine with either.

I'd support using the term "colorless" or "clear", simply because the point of the tag would be for images like post #3315017 and not for images like post #3713249.