implications to scan_artifacts

BUR #3610 has been rejected.

create implication scan_dust -> scan_artifacts
create implication crease -> scan_artifacts

scan_artifacts wiki names creases as one example of scan artifacts, and dust is in the same way a product of poor scanning

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

EDIT: The bulk update request #3610 (forum #173905) has been rejected by @evazion.

Creases are a common type of scan artifact, but you can also fake a crease digitally. Not every image with a crease was actually scanned. That's why this implication was rejected years ago in topic #8072.

Since then, an implication from crease to scan was created anyway, which had the effect of adding the scan tag to a lot of art that doesn't actually appear to be scanned, like post #2723267. IMHO this was done in error.

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

Well, we can either undo the implication or create a new tag for fake creases. Looking through crease source:http* to try to find non-scans, I don't see that many things that look like fake creases to me.

The bulk update request #3610 (forum #173905) has been rejected by @evazion.

BUR #4019 has been approved by @evazion.

create implication scan_dust -> scan_artifacts

Doing scan dust.

EDIT: The bulk update request #4019 (forum #176472) has been approved by @evazion.

The bulk update request #4019 (forum #176472) has been approved by @evazion.