New flower implications.

BUR #22649 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

create implication red_pansy -> pansy
create implication red_pansy -> red_flower
create implication purple_pansy -> pansy
create implication purple_pansy -> purple_flower
create implication yellow_pansy -> pansy
create implication yellow_pansy -> yellow_flower
create implication blue_pansy -> pansy
create implication blue_pansy -> blue_flower
create implication pink_pansy -> pansy
create implication pink_pansy -> pink_flower
create implication orange_pansy -> pansy
create implication orange_pansy -> orange_flower

Simmilar to the rose and tulip implications, eg white tulip implies tulip and white flower, red rose implies rose and flower, etc.

Using aliases instead of implications seems better, since implications for each would greatly inflate the tag count.

Here is a "template" of similar flower color implications for anyone who wants to work on them when they have ten or more posts or for myself later. Posting in a separate comment to not make quoting the above a pain. Less used colors (green, grey, brown and multicolor) are at the bottom of each for easier copy-pasting if you just want to copy paste the more used ones into the bur. Was debating adding multicolored so it's at the very bottom of each section. Note most don't have wikis yet.

vow said:

Using aliases instead of implications seems better, since implications for each would greatly inflate the tag count.

You mean on the post or in the system? on the post is the point (if correctly used) and in the system is following previous example and also correct if well, correct.

Apologies as I forgot to further clarify; I believe it to be a cleaner method to leave the flower types by themselves instead of attaching them to colors. For example, in a given post with a red peony, the peony tag would exist along with red_flower instead of being red_peony. This would simplify the tags. I know for other flower types, such as tulip, there already exist tags for different colors pink_tulip, red_tulip, yellow_tulip, so i'm not sure if it will be agreed on. It would make searching for peony and tulip simpler should colored flowers simply be referred to by (color)_flower as a tag, not (color)_(flower type).

vow said:

Apologies as I forgot to further clarify; I believe it to be a cleaner method to leave the flower types by themselves instead of attaching them to colors. For example, in a given post with a red peony, the peony tag would exist along with red_flower instead of being red_peony. This would simplify the tags. I know for other flower types, such as tulip, there already exist tags for different colors pink_tulip, red_tulip, yellow_tulip, so i'm not sure if it will be agreed on. It would make searching for peony and tulip simpler should colored flowers simply be referred to by (color)_flower as a tag, not (color)_(flower type).

I disagree, some have clear cultural significance such as red roses and others people might just want to look for. I don't mind extra tags when they serve a purpose like this.

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

In lots of posts there's a shitton of flowers of various species, each in a different colour.

The bulk update request #22649 (forum #266102) has been approved by @nonamethanks.

BUR #25334 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

create implication black_tulip -> black_flower
create implication black_tulip -> tulip
create implication blue_tulip -> blue_flower
create implication blue_tulip -> tulip
create implication aqua_rose -> aqua_flower
create implication aqua_rose -> rose
create implication brown_rose -> brown_flower
create implication brown_rose -> rose
create implication grey_rose -> grey_flower
create implication grey_rose -> rose
create implication multicolored_rose -> multicolored_flower
create implication pink_carnation -> carnation
create implication pink_carnation -> pink_flower
create implication white_carnation -> carnation
create implication white_carnation -> white_flower

For some reason blue tulip was the only one in the tulip wiki to not have a wiki. Found some more flowers while I was add it.

Also who wrote in the multicolored rose wiki "Roses that are tinted with multiple colors, either through tinting the flower with dye, or through colorful shadows and/or light sources." Multi color roses are real??

BUR #26504 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

create implication green_flower -> flower
create implication grey_flower -> flower
create implication dogwood_(flower) -> flower
create implication violet_(flower) -> flower
create implication forget-me-not_(flower) -> flower
create implication clematis_(flower) -> flower

Some more

BUR #26542 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

create implication amaryllis_(flower) -> flower
create implication aqua_flower -> flower
create implication azalea_(flower) -> flower
create implication bougainvillea_(flower) -> flower
create implication brown_flower -> flower
create implication crocus_(flower) -> flower
create implication elpis_flower -> flower
create implication freesia_(flower) -> flower
create implication gentiana_(flower) -> flower
create implication hanging_flower -> flower
create implication mimosa_(flower) -> flower
create implication multicolored_flower -> flower
create implication oversized_flower -> flower
create implication primrose_(flower) -> flower
create implication qingxin_flower -> flower
create implication snowbell_(flower) -> flower
create implication water_lily_flower -> flower

Some more but the previous bur was already voted on.

• Qingxin_flower, elpis_flower and fire flower are fictional
• Spoken_heart implies heart so spoken flower should imply flower.
• Umbrella flower is a simmilar case, it's for decorations, hat flower implicates flower and hat.
• Gentiana_(flower) has empty wiki but is a flower.
• Decorations usually imply the decoration.
• So do on/in tags.

BUR #26543 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

create implication ankle_flower -> flower
create implication dress_flower -> flower
create implication footwear_flower -> flower
create implication horn_flower -> flower
create implication umbrella_flower -> flower
create implication umbrella_flower -> umbrella

Decorations

• Hat flower implicates flower and hat.
• Decorations usually imply the decoration.

BUR #26544 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

create implication eating_flower -> flower
create implication on_flower -> flower
create implication smelling_flower -> flower

Actions.

• Spoken_heart implies heart so spoken flower should imply flower.

Mango2 said:
BUR #26544
create implication spoken_flower -> flower

For some cases when a flower is not depicted as actual object, like what appears on speech bubbles or something like post #6169028 - there's flower (symbol) that should be better used.

Mango2 said:

• Qingxin_flower, elpis_flower and fire flower are fictional

Not sold on fire flower since it doesn't look like a real flower personally in my subjective opinion, barring that though, it also has a lot of cases where I would tag it and not flower. post #7573657, post #7276811, post #6329822.

World_Funeral said:

For some cases when a flower is not depicted as actual object, like what appears on speech bubbles or something like post #6169028 - there's flower (symbol) that should be better used.

zetsubousensei said:

Not sold on fire flower since it doesn't look like a real flower personally in my subjective opinion, barring that though, it also has a lot of cases where I would tag it and not flower. post #7573657, post #7276811, post #6329822.

Removed fire flower and spoken flower. In the interest of transparency pinging @World_Funeral who previously voted on it.

BUR #26549 has been rejected.

create implication fire_flower -> flower

Should/shouldn't fire flower also imply flower.

BUR #26550 has been rejected.

create implication spoken_flower -> flower

Should/shouldn't spoken flower also imply flower.

Also what do you guys think of splitting burs like this? Too spammy or does it just allow for greater accuracy?