Implicating feather_boa → boa_(clothing)
Link to implication

Reason:

The feather boa is a type of boa, a fashion accessory worn around the neck. They can come in various forms, one of them the ones made out of feathers.

Related implications

• feather boa → feathers, similar to how loose feather and feather in hair are implicated to feathers.
• fur boa → fur, see above
• fur boa → boa (clothing)

EDIT: The tag implication feather_boa -> boa_(clothing) (forum #240107) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.

-1 for the feathers implication. feather boas are often drawn in a way that it looks more like made of fur than feathers. you need to actually see the feathers to tag it with feathers tag.

edit: in fact.. just alias both feather boa and fur boa to boa_(clothing). they are 95% of the time completely indistinguishable

Ledian said:
-1 for the feathers implication. feather boas are often drawn in a way that it looks more like made of fur than feathers. you need to actually see the feathers to tag it with feathers tag.

edit: in fact.. just alias both feather boa and fur boa to boa_(clothing). tey are 90% of the time completely indistinguishable

The same could be said about loose_feather, and yet it implies feathers anyways. Perhaps we should also suggest it be unimplicated to feathers?

According to Wikipedia, feather boas can be made of fur, so -1 for the feathers implication as well.

facelessmess said:
The same could be said about loose_feather, and yet it implies feathers anyways. Perhaps we should also suggest it be unimplicated to feathers?

what? loose feather tag applies on images where you can identify the feather as feather? i was talking about that you cannot put feather tag on things where you cannot recognize the feathers as feathers.

Ledian said:
what? loose feather tag applies on images where you can identify the feather as feather? i was talking about that you cannot put feather tag on things where you cannot recognize the feathers as feathers.

Ooooh I see. My mistake, I misunderstood you.

facelessmess said:
The same could be said about loose_feather, and yet it implies feathers anyways. Perhaps we should also suggest it be unimplicated to feathers?

Yep, and it's been discussed before. Feathers, skin, scales, and fur are body tags.

Some bad implications were made a while back (feather_in_hair and loose_feather), so the feathers tag is quite messy. Like Knotty suggested, it should probably be renamed to plumage.

Fixing it would require a lot of work, though: unimplications, renaming the <color>_feathers tags, sorting out objects from plumage, etc. So I doubt that it'll ever get fixed.

I'd argue fur_boa doesn't need to exist at all...there is not a single instance of an actual fur boa on the site. There are 3 images tagged with fur_boa...2 of them are not even boas, the characters have just slung a tail around their neck, and the third image looks to be a just a regular old feather_boa.

So in that case there's no need for an implication because functionally there is only one "boa" tag that we're actually using....feather_boa.

The tag implication feather_boa -> boa_(clothing) (forum #240107) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.