Implicating censor_bar → censored
Link to implication

Reason:

Even if it's a small bar, it's still censored.

You can have a censor bar that's not actually covering anything, as a joke or some such.
That would not actually be censored.

Good point, and looks like there's at least one image where that's the case. I guess we'll just have to tag censored manually.

post #189610

It happens.

I would argue that it is impossible to show a censor bar without something being censored. That pony's hoof is being censored in Halite's picture.

Wyvrn said:
I would argue that it is impossible to show a censor bar without something being censored. That pony's hoof is being censored in Halite's picture.

Lies!

Would we still call it censored even if nothing is behind it? Like it's still acting as a censor even if it's over the air or do we want to reserve censor for when things are actually censored

Rainbow_Dash said:
Would we still call it censored even if nothing is behind it? Like it's still acting as a censor even if it's over the air or do we want to reserve censor for when things are actually censored

The latter.

Seconded. I think censored should only be tagged for images where something of interest has been censored.

For instance, I wouldn't call this censored:
post #61983

Go ahead and delete this implication. I didn't think of censor bar 'misuse' when I submitted it.

I'd say censor_bar should be used whenever one is visible (obviously), but censored should only be used when it's a legitimate censoring (even in the case of the hilariously inadequate Japanese censoring).

Many people blacklist censored and we wouldn't want to be hiding anything with a censor_bar even if no censoring is actually taking place.

Therefore I believe that this implication is a bad idea.

agreed