Implicating detailed_scales → scales
Link to implication

Reason:

scales that are detailed in a sence that they have a rough surface that can almost look 3d in some cases.

Sincerely, 'detailed_scales' seems to be a quite unnecessary tag, since it would be completely covered by 'scales + detailed/photorealism'.

Edit: I almost forgot to say I suggest aliasing them instead.

O16 said:
Sincerely, 'detailed_scales' seems to be a quite unnecessary tag, since it would be completely covered by 'scales + detailed/photorealism'.

Edit: I almost forgot to say I suggest aliasing them instead.

scales ~detailed ~photorealism seems to result in false positives:
post #1141787 post #1158944 post #1128667
These are all properly tagged, as they're detailed in some sense or photorealistic in some portion, but the scales themselves aren't the major detail. Throwing a splotch of spots indicates scales, but that's about it.

Furrin_Gok said:
scales ~detailed ~photorealism seems to result in false positives:
post #1141787 post #1158944 post #1128667
These are all properly tagged, as they're detailed in some sense or photorealistic in some portion, but the scales themselves aren't the major detail. Throwing a splotch of spots indicates scales, but that's about it.

I) I said it is "completelly covered by", didn't said this search would result only in Posts featuring detailed scales, if I wanted to do so I would have said "perfectly covered by".

II) It isn't a bad tag, just seems de somewhat superfluous to me. Anyway, if we keep it also imply it to 'detailed.