The bulk update request #3325 is pending approval.

Reason: Created because there was no precedent.

The bulk update request #3326 is pending approval.

create implication backgammon (4) -> board_game (387)
create implication battleship_(table_game) (8) -> board_game (387)
create implication pandemic_(game) (1) -> board_game (387)
create implication scrabble (11) -> board_game (387)
create implication shadow_hunters (1) -> board_game (387)
create implication stratego (4) -> board_game (387)
create implication the_game_of_life (3) -> board_game (387)
create implication uranium_rush (1) -> board_game (387)

Reason: continuation of above.

Should I change each tag to copyright?

drag007 said:
Should I change each tag to copyright?

I would as that would fall in what copyright tags cover.

drag007 said:
Should I change each tag to copyright?

I'd say no, since the boards are visually identifiable things themselves. They're not owned properties (well, several of the listed games aren't, anyway) or some kind of image theme. So I guess some of them would be copyright (and should imply their owner), but checkers, chess, etc, are generic board games that aren't owned by anyone.

Also, for those owned properties, implicating board_game may not be a good idea, because they can be depicted in a way that doesn't look like a board game (and like the issue currently facing video_games, we don't want to imply a source medium when that medium isn't depicted).

This sounds to me like the same thing with video_games (topic #29801). It is conceivable to depict board game properties without any elements of an actual board game visible.

some of these seem like they'd be able to be tagged without the actual "game" part of the board game visible, and I think we want to avoid that similar to how we're trying to get rid of the video_game tag on stuff that's video game related but dosn't actually contain someone actually playing a videogame.
also is Twister even considered a board game?

darryus said:
also is Twister even considered a board game?

I thought it'd be fun to look this up! Twister certainly falls under Wikipedia's category for party board games, and for what it's worth, Twister also seems to appear as a board game in the coffee table book Spin Again: Board Games from the Fifties and Sixties, according to the references on Wikipedia (though I could not independently verify this myself).

Anyhow, onto the main discussion at hand:

The initial reasoning laid out within the video_games BUR (topic #29801) describes how other tags do not receive the same treatment as the video_games tag. The issue comes about because:

Stikerman said:
There's no reason for video game franchises to imply video games, not on a site that enforces tagging what you see. If you don't see a video game, video game should not be tagged.

For example, currently, minecraft implicates video_games. This causes problems when, say, an ender_dragon is drawn and the Minecraft tag is implicated, in turn implicating the video_games tag. Yet an ender dragon can be drawn without actually depicting video games in the image. Imagine if someone has drawn their ender dragon fan character grabbing a hot drink in a cafe with no video games present in the image.

Thus, to avoid a situation like video_games here, one of two rules must be observed:
i) Board game titles and franchises cannot implicate the board_game tag; or
ii) Board game titles and franchises cannot be tagged unless the physical board game is depicted in the image

The suggestions of Watsit and darryus advocate for the first of these two solutions, and I can certainly see why. The second rule above would have some unsavoury consequences, such as an inability to form the implication professor_plum -> cluedo.

These problems are very immediate. For instance, post #1330169 depicts a wolf version of the Cluedo board game character Professor Plum, yet the image does not depict a board game whatsoever.

Thus, I have to agree with Watsit and darryus. I should never foresee this becoming as tangled a mess as the video_games tag, because 99% of images that might be tagged cluedo, monopoly, or go_(game) will, in fact, depict a board game in the image. However, the remaining 1% of images (like post #1330169) shall force us into a dilemma. We would routinely be forced to make a difficult decision between either failing to tag cluedo when a Cluedo character is depicted, or tagging board_game when there is no board game depicted.

i’d say the best solution is to only implicate some of them, and tag the rest manually.

monroethelizard said:
I thought it'd be fun to look this up! Twister certainly falls under Wikipedia's category for party board games, and for what it's worth, Twister also seems to appear as a board game in the coffee table book Spin Again: Board Games from the Fifties and Sixties, according to the references on Wikipedia (though I could not independently verify this myself).

Anyhow, onto the main discussion at hand:

The initial reasoning laid out within the video_games BUR (topic #29801) describes how other tags do not receive the same treatment as the video_games tag. The issue comes about because:

For example, currently, minecraft implicates video_games. This causes problems when, say, an ender_dragon is drawn and the Minecraft tag is implicated, in turn implicating the video_games tag. Yet an ender dragon can be drawn without actually depicting video games in the image. Imagine if someone has drawn their ender dragon fan character grabbing a hot drink in a cafe with no video games present in the image.

Thus, to avoid a situation like video_games here, one of two rules must be observed:
i) Board game titles and franchises cannot implicate the board_game tag; or
ii) Board game titles and franchises cannot be tagged unless the physical board game is depicted in the image

The suggestions of Watsit and darryus advocate for the first of these two solutions, and I can certainly see why. The second rule above would have some unsavoury consequences, such as an inability to form the implication professor_plum -> cluedo.

These problems are very immediate. For instance, post #1330169 depicts a wolf version of the Cluedo board game character Professor Plum, yet the image does not depict a board game whatsoever.

Thus, I have to agree with Watsit and darryus. I should never foresee this becoming as tangled a mess as the video_games tag, because 99% of images that might be tagged cluedo, monopoly, or go_(game) will, in fact, depict a board game in the image. However, the remaining 1% of images (like post #1330169) shall force us into a dilemma. We would routinely be forced to make a difficult decision between either failing to tag cluedo when a Cluedo character is depicted, or tagging board_game when there is no board game depicted.

Very eloquently put! There's really no reason to dig ourselves into the exact same hole that we have with the video_games tag and everything attached to it.

cheshire3rd said:
i’d say the best solution is to only implicate some of them, and tag the rest manually.

I don't think there's a single board game tag in the quadruple digits yet, and even the board_game tag itself is in the low two hundreds. They should all only be manually tagged, as a supplemental tag to distinguish that the image actually contains a board game within it and not just characters or settings originating from a board game IP.