Topic: Some missing tail implications

The bulk update request #8341 is pending approval.

create implication tapering_tail (5059) -> tail (1739235)
create implication tail_spines (1069) -> tail (1739235)
create implication gradient_tail (590) -> tail (1739235)
create implication hairless_tail (1162) -> tail (1739235)
create implication bandaged_tail (507) -> tail (1739235)
create implication tail_tattoo (475) -> tail (1739235)
create implication cybernetic_tail (354) -> tail (1739235)
create implication segmented_tail (339) -> tail (1739235)
create implication tail_lick (184) -> tail (1739235)
create implication notched_tail (368) -> tail (1739235)
create implication sweaty_tail (237) -> tail (1739235)
create implication tail_armor (210) -> tail (1739235)

Reason: A tail has to be present for these tags to apply, since they're about tails.

Meh vote because I'm not particularly enthused about the glistening_* tags

snpthecat said:
Meh vote because I'm not particularly enthused about the glistening_* tags

I'd personally prefer we get rid of all of the glistening tags (as well as light & dark, but that's a discussion for a different topic)

snpthecat said:
Meh vote because I'm not particularly enthused about the glistening_* tags

donovan_dmc said:
I'd personally prefer we get rid of all of the glistening tags (as well as light & dark, but that's a discussion for a different topic)

what's wrong with glistening?

I like shiny things :(

dba_afish said:
what's wrong with glistening?

nimphia said:
I like shiny things :(

It's be fine if they were kept to things with a wet-like reflective sparkly sheen, but they're all too often used on things that are simply lit/shaded or have a single highlight stroke.

dba_afish said:
what's wrong with glistening?

It's applied very inconsistently on anything that's remotely lit up

donovan_dmc said:
It's applied very inconsistently on anything that's remotely lit up

Okay, after checking these, I see what you mean. Bit of shading or sunlight on the body part -> glistening?
Plus some overlap with metallic_* and wet. +1 for getting rid of these.

I wonder if we should expand the sparkling_* group? That might work for the 'shiny' niche.

As for the rest of the implications...
- How does pointed tail differ from spade tail? The former is more ^ or ▲ than spade? Needs a wiki entry. There's currently a lot of spades in there.
- Is tail armor really guaranteed to include a tail? What if it's, let's say, a smithy with some tail armor on wall? Should that not be tagged as tail armor? Wiki currently states that the armor should be worn, but...

genjar said:
As for the rest of the implications...
- How does pointed tail differ from spade tail? The former is more ^ or ▲ than spade? Needs a wiki entry. There's currently a lot of spades in there.

Removed for now, along with glistening_tail.

- Is tail armor really guaranteed to include a tail? What if it's, let's say, a smithy with some tail armor on wall? Should that not be tagged as tail armor? Wiki currently states that the armor should be worn, but...

tail_clothing and tail_accessory imply tail, so...

genjar said:
Okay, after checking these, I see what you mean. Bit of shading or sunlight on the body part -> glistening?
Plus some overlap with metallic_* and wet. +1 for getting rid of these.

I wonder if we should expand the sparkling_* group? That might work for the 'shiny' niche.

I think sparkling_* should remain limited to things with actual sparkles. There's also iridescent. Maybe glossy_* for more general shiny gloss?

genjar said:
Okay, after checking these, I see what you mean. Bit of shading or sunlight on the body part -> glistening?
Plus some overlap with metallic_* and wet. +1 for getting rid of these.

hmmm... actually, yeah.

while doing my current tag project I've actually noticed that there are a few other <quality>_<body_part>-type tags that seem kind of over-/mistagged as well.

maybe we could just keeping glistening around on its own and alias away all the subtags, it'd make it a hellalalot easier to clean.