Beetle implications

BUR #5934 has been rejected.

create implication rhinoceros_beetle -> beetle
create implication stag_beetle -> beetle
create implication hercules_beetle -> rhinoceros_beetle

These species of beetle are probably common enough to warrant implications for safety, especially since missing this implication means bug and insect implications won't be triggered.

Hercules beetles are also a particular kind of rhinoceros beetle.

The hidden contents below are tangential tagging questions, and probably don't affect this request.

About your first question, I don't think a general insect like beetle should be tagged along with beetle girl or beetle boy, for example. However, it is interesting to tag the animal if its a much more specific subspecies.

Let's say there's an arthropod girl based on hercules_beetle specifically. The art doesn't depict an actual beetle, but its a direct reference to hercules_beetle, which is why this tag is be pretty useful there, imo. And it's not useful to create an hercules_beetle_girl tag just for this arthropod girl.

Another example could be Black Mamba, which currently works just fine the way I described. It's a snake subspecies that doesn't imply snake, and we have personifications of a black mamba there so implying it to snake or animal wouldn't work. That's why I'm -1 to the BUR for now. It may be something that require further discussion.

Now for your second question, I don't think Pokemon should be tagged with the animal they are based or similar looking, because they are fictional creatures, which is why we use pokemon (creature) instead of animal. For fictional creatures from other copyrights we have the creature tag too.

Ambivalent.

The implications make sense, but it can potentially cause issues like what mongirlfan mentions.

Another thing is that it introduces a somewhat complex web of implications that can make it a bit hard to fix tags if someone mistags a stag beetle as a hercules beetle, introducing rhinoceros_beetle in the process.

mongirlfan said:

Now for your second question, I don't think Pokemon should be tagged with the animal they are based or similar looking, because they are fictional creatures, which is why we use pokemon (creature) instead of animal. For fictional creatures from other copyrights we have the creature tag too.

Already being done with some like rowlet, rowlet owl gives 300 results.

mongirlfan said:

The art doesn't depict an actual beetle, but its a direct reference to hercules_beetle, which is why this tag is be pretty useful there, imo.

As I went through and fixed some missing beetle tags today, this statement ended up fitting quite well. I can now certainly see the utility in having the ability to specifically point out the creature a personification or other animal part is referring to without calling the generic creature's tag (which would cause some search pollution if the animal didn't actually show up in the image). What's left in "stag_beetle -beetle" gives some fair examples.

...however, this doesn't resolve the Pokemon side that well; it ultimately depends on how specific the Pokemon's real-world reference gets.

Edit: I ultimately no longer feel comfortable with the idea of this implication set going through. It seems like a poor choice to forfeit tagging specificity for the sake of catching missing tags that are easily added. From my point of view, tags should be able to point out unique aspects of an image without making sacrifices (in this case, placing numerous irrelevant tags).

The bulk update request #5934 (forum #189133) has been rejected by @LetsDancing.