Implicating black_shoes → shoes
Link to implication

Reason:

black shoes are still shoes

EDIT: The tag implication black_shoes -> shoes (forum #248986) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.

+1, makes sense

Should we alias black_shoes to black_footwear instead? That way, all black footwear is covered by the same tag instead of potentially having one for every type of black footwear (black_shoes, black_boots, black_sandals, etc.).

BlueDingo said:
Should we alias black_shoes to black_footwear instead? That way, all black footwear is covered by the same tag instead of potentially having one for every type of black footwear (black_shoes, black_boots, black_sandals, etc.).

I don't think so, especially since black boots is a pretty common skimpy outfit and people might want to distinguish that from normal shoes. I think implicating is better.

Related: forum #264814

Bump before this one gets nuked. The question of "should this be aliased to black_footwear" seems to be solved as it's now an implication instead. Plenty of colors already imply shoes, including: brown_shoes, red_shoes, orange_shoes, yellow_shoes, green_shoes, blue_shoes, purple_shoes, grey_shoes, tan_shoes, pink_shoes, white_shoes, multicolored_shoes.

It's a no-brainer that shouldn't have been left for 5 years.

The tag implication black_shoes -> shoes (forum #248986) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.