Light Blush Implicating Blush

BUR #6936 has been rejected.

create implication light_blush -> blush

Seems pretty straightforward. One is just the other but harder to see. Plus there a fair number of images that already have both.

Similarly to light smile (topic #6008), I think I'd prefer these as be separate, sometimes overlapping tags. I don't think a very faint blush should be tagged as blush.

Isn't this a fairly useless tag?
When is it enough to tag a blush as light_blush? It only leads to random usage.

And if we were to keep it, it's better to have it as a subset so both can be found in one search but the other can always be excluded.

I have to agree with Provence, I always found this tag to be useless.

Agree with EB.

EB said:

Similarly to light smile (topic #6008), I think I'd prefer these as be separate, sometimes overlapping tags. I don't think a very faint blush should be tagged as blush.

This is how I've always used both light smile and light blush. Like, I can tell she's blushing, but it's not really what someone searching for "blush" would be looking for. It is certainly subjective though.

+1. Trying to keep these separate leads to ridiculous scenarios; we'd be unable to tag any nose blushes that are light blushes as nose blushes because nose_blush implies blush. Same goes for a light ear_blush.

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

This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 45 days.

The bulk update request #6936 (forum #195386) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.