Implicating cell_shading → shaded
Link to implication

Reason:

EDIT: The tag implication cell_shading -> shaded (forum #245191) has been rejected by @Millcore.

Reason?

Cell_shading is actually a misspelling of cel_shading, and it's already aliased, so it can't imply something else. That aside, I guess cel-shading does count as shading, so if we're gonna tag that, might as well have the implication for it.

Fifteen said:
I guess cel-shading does count as shading, so if we're gonna tag that, might as well have the implication for it.

This could start going down a slippery slope. Wouldn't just about everything that isn't flat_colored count as shaded? If every tag related to shading implied shaded, over 90% of our content would (if everything was tagged fully and properly) have a shaded tag.

In regards to the subject of this alias -1

should probably read up here forum #202990

BlueDingo said:
This could start going down a slippery slope. Wouldn't just about everything that isn't flat_colored count as shaded? If every tag related to shading implied shaded, over 90% of our content would (if everything was tagged fully and properly) have a shaded tag.

linework, sketch, wip...eta...? honestly am confused at your opposition here , we do have things like fingers, butt or digital_painting too that exist and could well apply to over 70% of all submissions if properly tagged.

The shaded tag existing at all might be a fluke. Shading was invalidated because it's too broad and applies to too many posts to be useful.
That said I don't think this

BlueDingo said:
Wouldn't just about everything that isn't flat_colored count as shaded?

is a good argument. One of the defining points of flat_colors is the absence of shading. Saying that it would imply shading because it is related to shading and the definition discusses it is like saying nude should imply clothing because 'nude' implies a statement on if clothing is being worn.

regsmutt said:
That said I don't think this
is a good argument. One of the defining points of flat_colors is the absence of shading. Saying that it would imply shading because it is related to shading and the definition discusses it is like saying nude should imply clothing because 'nude' implies a statement on if clothing is being worn.

Everything that isn't flat colored. I never said that flat_colors is shaded or would imply shaded. I'm suggesting it would be one of the few things that wouldn't fall under the shaded tag.

Darou said:
linework, sketch

And there's two other things.

BlueDingo said:
Everything that isn't flat colored. I never said that flat_colors is shaded or would imply shaded.

My bad, lol, misread it. I'm in agreement there then.

The tag implication cell_shading -> shaded (forum #245191) has been rejected by @Millcore.