The bulk update request #146 is active.

Reason: Based on topic #26806.

I was initially skeptical over the kerchief tag, but I'm starting to think it would be a good base tag for bandanna and shemagh, and that handkerchief, headkerchief, and neckerchief should in turn be implicated to bandanna.

Edit:

• Removed a big bunch of implications. Basically, all the main tags (bandanna, handkerchief, headkerchief, neckerchief, and shemagh) will be directly implicated to kerchief, instead of having some tags (handkerchief, headkerchief, neckerchief) implicated to bandanna.
• Changed the implication neckerchief -> bandanna to now be neckerchief -> kerchief.

EDIT: The bulk update request #146 (forum #293873) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

As I said before, a handkerchief is not clothing, and kerchief is not always clothing. A kerchief is a piece of cloth that can be worn like a scarf or head scarf. The smaller ones aren't designed to be worn.

I don't understand the reasoning for implying bandanna, when a shemagh could also be a headkerchief or worn around the neck too, but a shemagh is not a bandanna. This BUR adds back all of the problems with implicating to bandanna that were supposed to be resolved by implying kerchief instead. Why do you want to do this?

I was wanting to have the bandanna, handkerchief, headkerchief, neckerchief, and shemagh tags all implicated to a unifying base tag. Since the vast majority of headkerchief and neckerchief posts are of bandannas, I thought it a good base tag for the *kerchief tags. Though I do see your point where this isn't the case every time, and a shemagh could be used instead of a bandanna in the same manner as a headkerchief or neckerchief. I'll remove the *kerchief -> bandanna implications.

I do still think that kerchief should be used as a base tag for each of the aforementioned tags. Currently the neckerchief and shemagh tags aren't implicated to kerchief, while bandanna, handkerchief, and headkerchief are.

Oof... forgot about the shemagh tags... good thing you noticed these!

was looking through your tags and I realized they still have their colors specified.
no matter the color, its still what it is eg. black_kerchief is still just a kerchief.

funkyy said:
was looking through your tags and I realized they still have their colors specified.
no matter the color, its still what it is eg. black_kerchief is still just a kerchief.

black_kerchief already implies kerchief, so I'm not sure what the problem is here.

magnuseffect said:
black_kerchief already implies kerchief, so I'm not sure what the problem is here.

the problem is that color specification is not important, whether the color, its still a kerchief. Also, when adding tags, black_kerchief does not change to kerchief so I don't know what you're on about.

Sounds like you're mixing up implications and aliases.

magnuseffect said:
Sounds like you're mixing up implications and aliases.

Ah shoot, yeah I was. Sorry about that mate.

But really though, having color specification in tags makes things a whole lot more cluttered.

funkyy said:
Ah shoot, yeah I was. Sorry about that mate.

But really though, having color specification in tags makes things a whole lot more cluttered.

The forum discussions topic #26767 and topic #26928 are suggesting a way to organize tags under possible 'color' and 'clothing' tag groups, among other potential tag groups.

monsterbomb10010 said:
Oof... forgot about the shemagh tags... good thing you noticed these!

Ain't a problem! ^-^

The bulk update request #146 (forum #293873) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.