Posted under Tags
BUR #35030 has been approved by @evazion.
create implication tit_(bird) -> bird
I’ve noticed that long-tailed tit already implies tit_(bird). Why not have tit (bird) imply the overall bird tag too? Unfortunately, I can’t have the eurasian blue tit, great tit and japanese tit imply the tit (bird) tag since they each have less than 10 posts.
Regardless, they’re all cute birbs.
The questions in the last topic were whether a) we really need all these highly specific subspecies tags and b) whether an animal species can imply the animal if you have a representation of the animal rather than the animal itself. Can a bird girl based on the Eurasian Blue Tit be tagged Eurasian Blue Tit if it implies bird? Can a sticker depicting a long-tailed tit be tagged bird if it's not a literal bird (post #8549441)?
My answer to the first question is: tit (bird) is fine but I don't think we need all these subspecies tags of it. Seia happens to have a long-tailed tit mascot character associated with her, but if we tagged long-tailed tit on every post of hers then it would have over 1k posts, even when you can barely see it or it's not drawn accurately. We'd end up with a tit (bird) tag divided into multiple subspecies tags, but that would still be 99% one subspecies because of one popular character.
As for the second question, the same can be said about virtually any implication. Can rose imply flower if someone has a tattoo of a rose, or there's a drawing of a rose on a chalkboard or something and it's not a literal flower? The answer is yes, otherwise we couldn't do any implications. You can always have a symbol or representation of a thing rather than the thing itself.
The bulk update request #35030 (forum #328374) has been approved by @evazion.
