imply honeycomb_(pattern) -> hexagon

BUR #5779 has been rejected.

create implication honeycomb_(pattern) -> hexagon

Possibly don't need,
honeycomb_(pattern) -> hexagon
honeycomb_background -> hexagon
with hexagon being such a strong base Tag.
Thoughts?

This seems like a real stretch. It's like having checkered imply square.

Ambivalent.
I suppose it technically counts, but like evazion mentions it's practically the same as having checkered implying square.

evazion said:

This seems like a real stretch. It's like having checkered imply square.

Agree (and -1 to the BUR). The basic shapes should always be entities and not as part of a repeating pattern.

BrokenEagle98 said:

Agree (and -1 to the BUR). The basic shapes should always be entities and not as part of a repeating pattern.

Maybe a note should be added to the wiki pages for shapes, then. (Although up until now I hadn't really realized there even were tags for basic geometric shapes.)

The bulk update request #5779 (forum #187944) has been rejected by @evazion.