Spider lilies&floral prints implications

BUR #14559 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

create implication blue_spider_lily -> spider_lily
create implication blue_spider_lily -> blue_flower
create implication white_spider_lily -> spider_lily
create implication white_spider_lily -> white_flower
create implication yellow_spider_lily -> spider_lily
create implication yellow_spider_lily -> yellow_flower
create implication camellia_print -> floral_print
create implication chrysanthemum_print -> floral_print
create implication hibiscus_print -> floral_print
create implication lily_print -> floral_print
create implication morning_glory_print -> floral_print
create implication spider_lily_print -> floral_print
create implication peony_print -> floral_print

This one may be a bit messy because I combined spider lily colors and various flower prints, but they pertain to flowers so I hope you'll excuse me.

Spider lilies are popular flowers and artists sometimes draw them in colors other than red. We've had rose color implications for a long time, now we have tulip colors. So why not spider lilies?
As for prints, I think they should have their implications just like other prints (e.g. rose print, sunflower print...).

I'm not really a fan of this trend of making specific color tags for every kind of flower. I can get behind color tags for roses since they dominate all other flower tags with a count of over 70k, but when we have 36 other specific flower tags (and that's only counting the ones that currently imply flower) it seems rather superfluous.

AngryZapdos said:

I'm not really a fan of this trend of making specific color tags for every kind of flower.

Currently there are only a few species that have color tags with implications. All of the them have >1000 posts, so it's not really about "every kind of flower". This logic about domination can be, for example, applied to short hair>very short hair. Short hair has whopping >1.6M posts while very short hair has <10k and is technically a subclass of short hair.
Speaking of every kind and in response to:

but when we have 36 other specific flower tags (and that's only counting the ones that currently imply flower)

Can't say I get the point, especially speaking about color-flower implications. There is a tag group:flowers. When enough posts will be collected probably every "major" flower will get its wiki page and, consequently, will imply flower. Because they are flowers. So there'll be far more than 36 flower implications. I see no harm in this except that the flower wiki page won't look "good" due to the wall of implications.

Asqo said:

This logic about domination can be, for example, applied to short hair>very short hair. Short hair has whopping >1.6M posts while very short hair has <10k and is technically a subclass of short hair.

Except we don't have tags like green_very_short_hair, or braided_very_short_hair. We just use green_hair and braid in conjunction with very_short_hair, which was my whole point with these flower implications - rose is an enormous flower tag, which provides justification to be tagging its individual colors as even for the more niche colors there's a large amount of results. For all of these much smaller flower tags, instead of something like white_spider_lily it's already easy enough to search white_flower spider_lily.

Asqo said:

When enough posts will be collected probably every "major" flower will get its wiki page and, consequently, will imply flower ... so there'll be far more than 36 flower implications. I see no harm in this except that the flower wiki page won't look "good" due to the wall of implications.

My issue is not with the implications but their root cause, the tag bloat that is using color_flower for every color of every flower. We use 12 basic colors for tagging - red, orange, yellow, green, blue, purple, pink, aqua, brown, grey, black, and white. If we start tagging every single flower with every single color we end up with potentially 432 different color_flower tags, a large number of which would likely have a count of less than 10. At that point it's pure tag padding that replaces very simple searches (red_flower spider_lily etc.).

AngryZapdos said:
it's already easy enough to search white_flower spider_lily.

A lot of those are red spider lilies + other random white flowers, like post #5836478 or post #5785873. It's one thing for flowers that always have one color, like red spider lilies, but I don't see the harm for uncommon colors to get tagged, given how often flowers appear in pictures and given that there's almost never a single one or even a single color.

The bulk update request #14559 (forum #230944) has been approved by @nonamethanks.