Donmai

create implication zipper_pull_tab -> zipper

Posted under Tags

BUR #3433 has been rejected.

create implication zipper_pull_tab -> zipper

If it's identifiable as a zipper pull tab, isn't that because it belongs to a zipper? I went to check "zipper_pull_tab -zipper" and all the results I clicked on had zippers and just hadn't tagged it.

EDIT: The bulk update request #3433 (forum #172571) has been rejected by @evazion.

Updated by DanbooruBot

Rejecting because the zipper isn't always visible, even though it usually is and most zipper_pull_tab -zipper posts should be tagged zipper.

I think zipper pull tab is a pretty useless tag in general though. Zippers always have a pull tab (how else could you open them?), and whether or not the pull tab is actually visible is usually irrelevant. It's like seeing a button-up shirt and tagging both the buttons and the button holes, or seeing a belt and tagging both the belt and the belt loops on the pants. These are tiny details that have zero relevance to the picture.

evazion said:

Rejecting because the zipper isn't always visible, even though it usually is and most zipper_pull_tab -zipper posts should be tagged zipper.

I think zipper pull tab is a pretty useless tag in general though. Zippers always have a pull tab (how else could you open them?), and whether or not the pull tab is actually visible is usually irrelevant. It's like seeing a button-up shirt and tagging both the buttons and the button holes, or seeing a belt and tagging both the belt and the belt loops on the pants. These are tiny details that have zero relevance to the picture.

It has use specifically because sometimes one or the other is not visible.

To be honest, this implication should have been approved. The zipper tag has from very early on been used to cover any part of the zipper, whether it is the teeth or the pull tab. Trying to separate them at this point doesn't make sense, as there are plenty of posts under zipper that only depict the pull tab.

1