create implication crystal_earrings -> earrings
Posted under Tags
create implication crystal_earrings -> earrings
I probably should have written that it was made out of a gemstone or a gem instead of crystal, but I was sticking to the tag being called crystal earrings in spite of the misnomer. If the earrings are made out of gems, wouldn't it be just as sensible to call them gemstone earrings, gem earrings or something equivalent?
As for diamonds, I was referring to the shape, not the gemstone.
Speaking of crystal, I have some serious misgivings about that wiki. Even though it's scientifically accurate in its description, it does nothing to clarify how the tag is actually used in practice, that is, big shiny rocks and Flandre's wings.
As it is now, one could tag any given crystalline solid (sugar cubes, for instance) as "crystal" and be technically correct.
Not a fan of using that definition for crystal either. If there's going to be a crystal tag, I'd personally think it best kept to what people would commonly think of as crystaline shapes like post #2233721, post #2181324, or post #2145492. Or Flandre's wing hangers. Then if it's substance is readily apparent, add a tag for that like ice, salt, or gem. Only trouble there is defining the shapes people are looking for.
As far as the original implication though, not sure; We don't have a tag for rings set with gemstones either to go off of, and all of the populated tags for more specific rings describe purpose/location rather than substance or shape (ie tail ring, wedding ring, toe ring, etc) . Makes me wonder if we even need an implication for either; Just continuing to tag gem and ring/earring seperately could certainly work.
I don't have a problem with the crystal earrings tag in principle. Other types of jewelry get similarly descriptive tags like pearl necklace and bead bracelet. The implication to earrings makes perfect sense.
I'd rather it imply gem than crystal, though, assuming any implications other than the one initially proposed. Whether gem should imply crystal is a subject for another discussion.
How about this for crystal and gem.
Crystal covers both raw crystals (disorganized facets) and cut (organized facets).
Gem covers polished (no facets) and cut precious stones and crystals.
Some other definitions
My only question is on Diamond; The other gems are largely defined by their colors, but a lot of diamonds aren't white/clear. In fact, there are large numbers of famous diamonds with deep colors (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_diamonds).
Not that we couldn't just use it for clear/white gems anyways since "pure" diamonds are that way.
Saduharta said:
My only question is on Diamond; The other gems are largely defined by their colors, but a lot of diamonds aren't white/clear. In fact, there are large numbers of famous diamonds with deep colors (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_diamonds).
Not that we couldn't just use it for clear/white gems anyways since "pure" diamonds are that way.
Normally they are colorless since they break visible light.
What you're talking about is impureness (may be nitrogen (-> yellow) or other substances).
But we treat here images and therefore the ideal picture of an diamon should be applied and this is colorless.
Saduharta said:
I know.
Just saying it's kinda weird we wouldn't tag some famous diamonds as diamond due to impurities.
Though I actually wonder just how important tagging gems by type/color is in the scheme of searches and such.
Well, we have a ruby_(stone) tag but the one who added this tag was me. Same thing for sapphire. So I don't really think this is that important if it's only used by one user xD.