Monarch implies butterfly

BUR #41229 has been rejected.

create implication monarch_butterfly -> butterfly

Self explanatory.

What about stuff like post #7567728?

zetsubousensei said:

What about stuff like post #7567728?

I think that's a misuse of the tag monarch butterfly. Those are butterfly wings, they happen to share the monarch pattern, but they clearly aren't a butterfly.

Freshblink said:

I think that's a misuse of the tag monarch butterfly. Those are butterfly wings, they happen to share the monarch pattern, but they clearly aren't a butterfly.

It matches how we use animal tags though, for instance post #6360879 is a golden_retriever without being a dog since it has the traits, post #7071840 is husky without being a dog for similar reasons. For non-dog examples post #4104104 Pallas cat, post #5152647 peacock, and post #5654410 whale_shark.

zetsubousensei said:

It matches how we use animal tags though, for instance post #6360879 is a golden_retriever without being a dog since it has the traits, post #7071840 is husky without being a dog for similar reasons. For non-dog examples post #4104104 Pallas cat, post #5152647 peacock, and post #5654410 whale_shark.

If we use peacock wholly like that for a human, what's wrong with using butterfly like that?

Generally the narrow species tags are shared between kemonomimi and the animal whereas the broader orders are saved for the animal itself.

It'd be like using bird on the peacock girl instead of bird girl. I assume it's done this way as to not create a million small tags like monarch_butterfly_girl, death's_head_hawkmoth_girl, swallowtail_butterfly_girl, ect.

Note that there is no official rulings to my knowledge, but this has been discussed before in the Calico thread.

The bird implications are a problem that should be undone, not replicated.

It's already annoying enough that I can't apply scarlet macaw to grian_(youtuber) bird_boy posts.

We have a few options here:

• we don't imply any species tag to the main animal tag (status quo): people tend to only tag the species because they assume the parent is implied, so we end up with a lot of untagged animals scattered around: monarch_butterfly -butterfly, golden_retriever -dog
• monarch butterfly implies butterfly: this causes pollution of parent animal tags with a lot of animal girls/boys (which, at the moment, already happens to a minor degree and is rampant on small animal tags: anomalocaris personification)
• we create a lot of small monarch butterfly girl/monarch butterfly wings tags instead: this would invite the creation of hundreds of single-post or single-character hallucigenia girl (hallucigenia personification) & co., and is not particularly intuitive for the aforementioned small tags

Keep in mind that this problem is not limited to animals, but also to any other type of objects with implications. A few examples:

• t-34 personification, with t-34 impying tank
• slime_girl pudding, with pudding implying food
• plant_girl tulip, with tulip implying flower
• mushroom_girl fly_agaric, with fly agaric implying mushroom

I vote for the status quo here. Untagged posts are always better than incorrectly tagged posts, and the idea of hundreds of tiny tags just to fix this sounds like a pointless and avoidable headache.

This bulk update request is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

The bulk update request #41229 (forum #356155) has been rejected by @nonamethanks.