Topic: [REJECTED] Tag alias: hitachi_magic_wand -> vibrating_wand

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

Fluffball

Member

But we can't add the implication to hitachi if we alias it!

Hitachi magic wand is a specific shape and design. A vibrating wand can be a different design, but the actual brand is so well recognized, it is almost always used. Since this is the case, an implication makes more sense, because assuming that every image is tagged correctly, you could find every wand that is not based on Hitachi's design by removing it from the search.

If it does get aliased, can you please add a quick imply to hitachi, so all of these posts can be recognized by the copyright? I don't want to have to go through 500 images and add copyright tags.

Edit:
- I'm not sure we could even call the vibrating_wand tag a sex_toy. Any wand that happens to be vibrating at the time would make sense for that tag. That's another reason not to alias to this tag.

Updated

29446905

Member

thevileone said:
But we can't add the implication to hitachi if we alias it!

Hitachi magic wand is a specific shape and design. A vibrating wand can be a different design, but the actual brand is so well recognized, it is almost always used. Since this is the case, an implication makes more sense, because assuming that every image is tagged correctly, you could find every wand that is not based on Hitachi's design by removing it from the search.

If it does get aliased, can you please add a quick imply to hitachi, so all of these posts can be recognized by the copyright? I don't want to have to go through 500 images and add copyright tags.

There seem to be a lot of similar-looking knock-off products these days, and there's the usual problem of images not having enough detail to positively identify brands. Hitachi is probably the most well-known name, so making hitachi_magic_wand imply wand_vibrator sounds sensible.

thevileone said:
Edit:
- I'm not sure we could even call the vibrating_wand tag a sex_toy. Any wand that happens to be vibrating at the time would make sense for that tag. That's another reason not to alias to this tag.

wand_vibrator should probably be the destination tag instead. It avoids this problem, and it better fits the prevailing pattern of <description>_vibrator.

Updated

29446905

Member

The bulk update request #447 is active.

remove implication hitachi_magic_wand (1574) -> vibrator (20607)
create implication hitachi_magic_wand (1574) -> wand_vibrator (2916)
create alias hitachi_wand (0) -> hitachi_magic_wand (1574)
create alias magic_wand_vibrator (0) -> hitachi_magic_wand (1574)
create alias vibrator_wand (0) -> wand_vibrator (2916)
create alias vibe_wand (0) -> wand_vibrator (2916)
create alias vibrowand (0) -> wand_vibrator (2916)
create implication wand_vibrator (2916) -> vibrator (20607)

Reason:

Follow-up from forum #294046. See linked post for additional reasoning.

  • Implicating hitachi_magic_wand to wand_vibrator per vibrator wiki, to preserve tagging space for non-Hitachi-style wand vibrators.
    • Also implicating wand_vibrator to vibrator, to maintain the implication chain.
  • Mass updating vibrating_wand to hitachi_magic_wand, to discourage use of the former until a decision can be made about wands that vibrate.
    • All (or nearly all) posts currently tagged vibrating_wand depict a Hitachi-style wand vibrator.
  • Aliasing vibrator_wand, vibe_wand, vibrowand to generic umbrella tag wand_vibrator.

Pending transitive relationships already in queue:

create implication hitachi_magic_wand -> vibrating_wand
Link to pending implication from 2017-02-27

create alias vibrating_wand -> wand_vibrator
Link to pending alias from 2020-11-05

EDIT: The bulk update request #447 (forum #300629) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

Updated by auto moderator

Kurogi FoxSIV

Member

๐Ÿ‘๏ผ‹๏ผ‘ ( for request #447 ) : Even if it's not from Hitachi.
........Ohhh didn't know that's what "Hitachi" meant...๐Ÿ™„

dr-spangle

Member

29446905 said:
The bulk update request #447 is active.

remove implication hitachi_magic_wand (1574) -> vibrator (20607)
create implication hitachi_magic_wand (1574) -> wand_vibrator (2916)
create alias hitachi_wand (0) -> hitachi_magic_wand (1574)
create alias magic_wand_vibrator (0) -> hitachi_magic_wand (1574)
create alias vibrator_wand (0) -> wand_vibrator (2916)
create alias vibe_wand (0) -> wand_vibrator (2916)
create alias vibrowand (0) -> wand_vibrator (2916)
create implication wand_vibrator (2916) -> vibrator (20607)

Reason:

Follow-up from forum #294046. See linked post for additional reasoning.

  • Implicating hitachi_magic_wand to wand_vibrator per vibrator wiki, to preserve tagging space for non-Hitachi-style wand vibrators.
    • Also implicating wand_vibrator to vibrator, to maintain the implication chain.
  • Mass updating vibrating_wand to hitachi_magic_wand, to discourage use of the former until a decision can be made about wands that vibrate.
    • All (or nearly all) posts currently tagged vibrating_wand depict a Hitachi-style wand vibrator.
  • Aliasing vibrator_wand, vibe_wand, vibrowand to generic umbrella tag wand_vibrator.

Pending transitive relationships already in queue:

create implication hitachi_magic_wand -> vibrating_wand
Link to pending implication from 2017-02-27

create alias vibrating_wand -> wand_vibrator
Link to pending alias from 2020-11-05

Does this need a separate thread or something, for it to actually get approved? As this thread is marked rejected.

Strikerman

Janitor

dr-spangle said:
Does this need a separate thread or something, for it to actually get approved? As this thread is marked rejected.

It might get more attention in its own thread, but the admins can approve or reject multiple requests in one thread.

  • 1