Posted under General
Aliasing wedding_band -> wedding_ring.
Implicating wedding_ring -> ring and jewelry.
Reason: For the alias, both wedding_band and wedding_ring are the same thing, and wedding_ring matches with ring. For the implications, a wedding ring is a type of ring which is a type of jewelry.
Updated by Jerl
I'd actually support wedding_band over wedding_ring. While they're used interchangeably most of the time now, the term wedding band was at least used to refer to the very simplistic ring of metal (which most of these images are) instead of the more elaborately decorated "rings."
Personally I would prefer that band and ring not be aliased together, with wedding band being used to refer to simple metal band style wedding rings (potentially wedding_band implicating wedding_ring), but there seems to be a lack of wedding rings that would fit outside of the band type.
I'm seeing less than one page of results when searching wedding_band. Additionally, most of the first page in a search for wedding_ring should actually be tagged wedding_band by NFW's definition. After loading another random page of wedding_ring, I found it to be pretty much the same situation. It seems to me that the difference is too subtle to maintain.
It doesn't matter much to me which direction you alias them, but it really is looking like it needs to be done.
Jerl said:
I'm seeing less than one page of results when searching wedding_band.
There is currently 11 pages of results under that tag, so it's a bit odd you're seeing less than one page of results.
Just a proposal, and I haven't bothered to check how worthwhile it might be under what is currently in the tags, but perhaps instead of drawing a band/ring distinction at this level it might be better to go up a level and have a tag that draws a distinction between simple band rings and decorated rings in general. The tag would implicate the ring tag regardless, but in terms of searching would enable people to perform a "ring -<new tag>" or "ring +<new tag>" search to divide between the two types.
As for what the new tag tags, I would imagine it probably would work better to tag the rings that aren't simply a metal band.
Going with or without my above proposal, it would probably be best to go with the name wedding_ring to keep it in line with the ring tag in general.
I am now seeing the full 11 pages of the tag there. I don't know why I couldn't see them earlier, but whatever.
I can agree with some additional implicated tag to distinguish between a band-type ring and a more decorated ring instead of using both wedding_band and wedding_ring. It would simplify tagging, at least from the perspective of how correctly the tags are used at the end of the day. I mean, even if the tag that specifies which type of ring isn't used enough, at least it'd be more likely to only be used on images that it applies to.
