Implicating bubble_gum → gum
Link to implication
Reason:
Also, would anyone ever mix up gum with gums?
EDIT: The tag implication bubble_gum -> gum (forum #204193) has been rejected by @Millcore.
Updated by auto moderator
Topic: Tag Implication: bubble_gum -> gum
Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions
Updated by anonymous
Hudson said:
Unsure about this one. Must we have two or more separate tags for practically the same thing?
They sometimes depict very different things, i.e. gum for a package of gum and bubble_gum for actually blowing bubbles. But I wouldn't cry much if aliased.
Hudson said:
Your gums are actually the fleshy parts of your teeth. There is a reasonable chance that visible gums will be tagged, especially with bloated teeth.
Yah, gums are tagged, I'm just in the middle of disambiguation thoughts here... Also found post #763764, a character named Gum :|
Updated by anonymous
It would probably be better to disambiguate gum (if it hasn't already), and implicate bubble_gum to chewing_gum instead. Bubble gum is a form of chewing gum that can be blown into bubble shapes. It'll most likely be tagged when someone is blowing a bubble. On the other hand, it is possible to depict chewing gum that may or may not be bubble gum, such as a wad getting stuck to the bottom of the shoe, in one's hair, suspending one like a puppet, etc.
clawstripe said:
It would probably be better to disambiguate gum (if it hasn't already), and implicate bubble_gum to chewing_gum instead. Bubble gum is a form of chewing gum that can be blown into bubble shapes. It'll most likely be tagged when someone is blowing a bubble. On the other hand, it is possible to depict chewing gum that may or may not be bubble gum, such as a wad getting stuck to the bottom of the shoe, in one's hair, suspending one like a puppet, etc.
Yeah, I'd agree with this.
The tag implication bubble_gum -> gum (forum #204193) has been rejected by @Millcore.