The following can explain why such eyewear with iconic double nose bridges and large teardrop-shaped frame are not always sunglasses.
post #5916976 depicts aviator frames but the lenses are clear just like normal prescriptionglasses.
When lens tint colour is not dark enough to be assumable as sunglasses. They might be glasses with photochromic/transition lenses. Take a look at post #5916504. Creating a tag for grey-tinted eyewear might be redundant.
This can result in un-implication from sunglasses. Unfortunately I wanted to request a rename but post count is just too high. However, I think making tags more versatile is a nice idea. Excuse me staff, would you consider not to simply rejecting this?
It's a good thing it's an alias and not a rename, though. You want everyone to still be able to find the old tag in most cases, and this isn't one of the cases that warrant a complete rename.
As for the BUR itself, the eyewear tags are somewhat controversial (I personally believe that if anything, sunglasses are a type of glasses, though most seem to consider them to be completely separate and thus in need of their own tags), but as long as we still have that system in place, it makes sense.
KagayakuShiningGate said: It's a good thing it's an alias and not a rename, though. You want everyone to still be able to find the old tag in most cases, and this isn't one of the cases that warrant a complete rename.
As for the BUR itself, the eyewear tags are somewhat controversial (I personally believe that if anything, sunglasses are a type of glasses, though most seem to consider them to be completely separate and thus in need of their own tags), but as long as we still have that system in place, it makes sense.
Thank you for your supportive views. Therefore an alias will be fine. It's a best decision to keep glasses and sunglassesseparate. Despite the presence of prescription shades, blue light-blocking type yellow-tinted eyewear that remind me to Shinjou Akane a lot, as well as transition ones. Visually speaking, sunglasses generally have darker tint.
Given that the overwhelming majority of posts using that tag are, in fact, sunglasses, I think that'd be a bad alias. Just make aviator glasses its own tag, if there are even enough such pictures to warrant it.
Given that the overwhelming majority of posts using that tag are, in fact, sunglasses, I think that'd be a bad alias. Just make aviator glasses its own tag, if there are even enough such pictures to warrant it.
It'd be better to create aviator_eyewear to put the regular eyeglasses into and change the BUR above to an implication to dump the same frames as sunglasses in as well.
It'd be better to create aviator_eyewear to put the regular eyeglasses into and change the BUR above to an implication to dump the same frames as sunglasses in as well.
I made it. So aliasing a tag must require an existing tag, right?
Today I want to kindly ask the moderators and admins, if automatically-rejected BURs like this do have chance to be resurrected again to pending status in order to be reviewed and reconsidered thoroughly. It's very sad that whenever a user has stated his/her best arguments and reasoning in a topic to support a BURs but they got ignored by the higher-ranking users into autorejection. I am so dissatisfied with different response time upon BURs for unexplained, seemingly arbitrary, inconsistent reasons. Some take less than a week, even less than 3 days. While some got ignored like this. Also, look again what happened to topic #22770, topic #22701, topic #22816 and so on.
KagayakuShiningGate said: They can approve even "outdated" BURs like this, but I don't think they can put them in the queue again.
Thanks for your response. I really hoped so, but it's been more than a week has passed since the automatic rejection, still no further actions taken. Asking them via DMail might be fruitless. Approval consistency, either for posts or BURs need to be seriously criticized by users. Meanwhile I saw copyright and character-related BURs got actions faster than general-related ones, especially regarding objects.
The following can explain why such eyewear with iconic double nose bridges and large teardrop-shaped frame are not always sunglasses.
post #5916976 depicts aviator frames but the lenses are clear just like normal prescriptionglasses.
When lens tint colour is not dark enough to be assumable as sunglasses. They might be glasses with photochromic/transition lenses. Take a look at post #5916504. Creating a tag for grey-tinted eyewear might be redundant.
Any chance of reconsidering this BUR into moderation queue? post #6302475 depicts aviator-framed glasses but not sunglasses at all. Furthermore this BUR got more upvotes.
WF said: Any chance of reconsidering this BUR into moderation queue? post #6302475 depicts aviator-framed glasses but not sunglasses at all. Furthermore this BUR got more upvotes.
More than one year has passed and I'd like to know what would the mods think about it. As mentioned before, there have some examples where aviator-style eyewear are not even sunglasses. As well in real life. If you downvoted this, please prove my previous multiple reasonings wrong or provide alternatives.
aviator eyewear is 44 posts, aviator sunglasses is 1.4k posts. There's no utility in merging both into aviator eyewear, it just makes it a pain in the ass to search for aviator glasses for no reason.
