Missing table implications

BUR #11108 has been approved by @evazion.

create implication blackjack_table -> table
create implication casino_card_table -> table
create implication chabudai_(table) -> table
create implication coffee_table -> table
create implication folding_table -> table
create implication long_table -> table
create implication mahjong_table -> table
create implication operating_table -> table
create implication picnic_table -> table
create implication poker_table -> table
create implication pool_table -> table
create implication roulette_table -> table
create implication round_table -> table
create implication vanity_table -> table
create implication wooden_table -> table

Umbrella tag. These are all from the table wiki under the "Type" category, yet are not implicated. I left out counter, human_table (for obvious reasons) & mixing_table.

I also left out baccarat_table & craps_table for not having enough posts.

table_tennis is listed as a type of table, yet it's referred to the sports, not to the table itself, this should be corrected, since there are cases like post #4810042 where the sports is present but the table itself is not.

There are things like post #5224388 where you can't actually see from the image that it's a table.

I don't see the issue with tagging that a table, it very clearly is a table.

Perhaps we should have a tag like tabletop or similar for images in which only the top of the table is visible and essentially replacing the "floor" of the image?

we on table for things like that, like how we have on bed

thelieutenant said:

we on table for things like that, like how we have on bed

That tag though would not include images like post #5540165 though. Also most posts under on table show more than enough of the table for it to be an actual object in the image instead of a surface we assume is a table.

I really don't think it's a good idea to start classifying pictures by the degree of tableness. Our users clearly have no issue tagging table features as tables (table food_focus, table no_humans -scenery etc), so I don't see a reason to make our life harder by having to distinguish whether a table is detailed enough to be tagged table.

on bed is already bad enough with this (38k posts under on_bed -bed -dakimakura_(medium), and most of them are beds). I don't think we want a repeat of that situation where thousands of posts are missing the tag because of a technicality. We don't even have the excuse of futon for this.

Finally, things like post #5224388 already get the table tag from on table, so imo there's not much point in trying to distinguish them from table.

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 #11108 (forum #216267) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

The bulk update request #11108 (forum #216267) has been approved by @evazion.

NWF_Renim said:

Perhaps we should have a tag like tabletop or similar for images in which only the top of the table is visible and essentially replacing the "floor" of the image?

This is pretty much the same distinction as bed versus bed sheet. It's proven very difficult to get people to actually follow that distinction. And I think for tables it's much less common for the table to be just a nondescript background rather than a visible piece of furniture.