Fiery Hair / Burning hair / Flaming Hair

Two questions! The first one is probably obvious, but burning_hair and flaming_hair should be changed to fiery_hair, correct? This can be done manually -- the first few have almost nothing in it -- I just wanted to makes ure, since strictly speaking according to the wiki fiery_hair also covers hair that merely appears to be fiery, while the other two are subsets of it for hair that is literally burning. The way they're used, though, seems the same.

The other question is related: Should fiery_hair imply fire? My intuition is that even if hair merely 'appears' to be fire, that's enough fire-theme for the image to get a fire tag, so the implication is safe despite the above thing about fiery_hair covering hair that isn't literal fire; but I'm not completely certain.

Xabid said:

Two questions! The first one is probably obvious, but burning_hair and flaming_hair should be changed to fiery_hair, correct? This can be done manually -- the first few have almost nothing in it -- I just wanted to makes ure, since strictly speaking according to the wiki fiery_hair also covers hair that merely appears to be fiery, while the other two are subsets of it for hair that is literally burning. The way they're used, though, seems the same.

Should be aliased to prevent further confusion, though I don't know the tag differences enough to make a judgment.

The other question is related: Should fiery_hair imply fire? My intuition is that even if hair merely 'appears' to be fire, that's enough fire-theme for the image to get a fire tag, so the implication is safe despite the above thing about fiery_hair covering hair that isn't literal fire; but I'm not completely certain.

I wouldn't consider post #1707043 or post #1796230 to be "fiery" enough, so no. Implicating thematic objects to literal objects is a good way of sending the latter to dilution hell; see the various *_hair_ornament tags we've had to clean up.