Topic: Plant in mouth BUR

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

The bulk update request #491 is pending approval.

create implication flower_in_mouth (21) -> plant_in_mouth (2)
create implication plant_in_mouth (2) -> plant (23576)
create implication grass_in_mouth (1) -> plant_in_mouth (2)
create implication grass_in_mouth (1) -> grass (5437)
create implication hay_in_mouth (4) -> hay (520)

Reason: flower and grass already imply plant so I think the in mouth versions are reasonable. Also hay_in_mouth implies the existence of hay as well. Hay is also a plant so I think adding that makes sense too. I also thought about putting hay -> grass instead of plant but, even though it would be categorically true, it might be better to not do this as people tend to mean/visualize different things when they specifically say either hay or grass. Might need a second opinion on that.

Updated

dfy6c said:
The bulk update request #491 is pending approval.

create implication flower_in_mouth (21) -> plant_in_mouth (2)
create implication plant_in_mouth (2) -> plant (23576)
create implication grass_in_mouth (1) -> plant_in_mouth (2)
create implication grass_in_mouth (1) -> grass (5437)
create implication hay_in_mouth (4) -> hay (520)

Reason: "Flower" and "grass" already imply "plant" so I think the in mouth versions are reasonable. Hay is also a plant so I think adding that makes sense too. I also thought about putting hay -> grass instead of plant but, even though it would be categorically true, it might be better to not do this as people tend to mean/visualize different things when they specifically say either hay or grass. Might need a second opinion on that.

I don't think we should imply plant for hay and grass tags: Yes they are a vegetal, but that's not really what the user would be looking for.

Keep in mind that there is chains of implications. I think people looking for plants are rather expecting to see decorative potted plants and flowers, they might get confuse to see sex sexy stuff on hay

kalethorebiter said:
I don't think we should imply plant for hay and grass tags: Yes they are a vegetal, but that's not really what the user would be looking for.

Keep in mind that there is chains of implications. I think people looking for plants are rather expecting to see decorative potted plants and flowers, they might get confuse to see sex sexy stuff on hay

I can remove the hay -> plant implications if it's a problem, but to clarify, the grass -> plant implication already exists in both the e6ai and e621 tag systems and the rest of these are just piggybacking off of those and is also my reasoning for the hay -> plant implication. Or do you mean we should take steps to unimply grass -> plant as well?

Updated

dfy6c said:
I can remove the hay -> plant implications if it's a problem, but to clarify, the grass -> plant implication already exists in both the e6ai and e621 tag systems and the rest of these are just piggybacking off of those and is also my reasoning for the hay -> plant implication. Or do you mean we should take steps to unimply grass -> plant as well?

Well, if it's already established, let's go ahead with grass to plant. (My objection as just, what do we do for grass_field, don't it imply grass.. So grass_fields are plants? It's super silly, and not a problem since even on e621 there's no implication.)

As for hay, I vote to get rid of it, if someone think a post deserve to have it's hay also tagged as plant, there's nothing preventing them to do so.

kalethorebiter said:
As for hay, I vote to get rid of it, if someone think a post deserve to have it's hay also tagged as plant, there's nothing preventing them to do so.

True, I can see that reasoning. Alright, I got rid of hay -> plant and hay-in-mouth -> plant-in-mouth.

Updated