The bulk update request #891 has been rejected.

create implication neckwear (2260) -> clothing (1903253)
create implication neckwear (2260) -> neckgear (0)
create implication amulet (6) -> jewelry (217582)
create implication collar (235734) -> neckgear (0)
create implication necklace (109015) -> neckgear (0)
create implication neck_ring (1250) -> neckgear (0)
create implication pendant (5305) -> jewelry (217582)
create implication necktie (36951) -> neckwear (2260)
create implication neckerchief (8098) -> neckwear (2260)
create implication scarf (42493) -> neckwear (2260)

Reason: Establishing neckwear/neckgear implications to formally utilize these tags (in a similar manner as headwear/headgear). The neckwear tag will be used for clothing placed on the neck, and the neckgear tag will be used for all types of gear placed on the neck. Let me know if something should be added or edited.

• Also, should amulet be aliased to pendant, or vice versa?

EDIT: The bulk update request #891 (forum #309702) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

Amulet, pendant, and bow tie don't have to be neckwear. A bow tie can be for the hair, and a pendant can be part of a wrist or arm (or other) strap or chain, it's not neck-exclusive. An amulet doesn't need to be neckwear either.

I'll remove amulet, pendant, and bow_tie since those could be used for things other than neckwear/neckgear.

Though should amulet be aliased to pendant (or pendant aliased to amulet), or should both amulet and pendant be kept as distinct tags?

d.d.m. said:
Though should amulet be aliased to pendant (or pendant aliased to amulet), or should both amulet and pendant be kept as distinct tags?

I'm not sure. I might go with aliasing amulet to pendant since I can't think of a useful distinction between them, but someone more familiar with them should probably chime in.

watsit said:
I'm not sure. I might go with aliasing amulet to pendant since I can't think of a useful distinction between them, but someone more familiar with them should probably chime in.

Hello there.
It’s probably late to budge in, but I think an implication would be more suitable, since an amulet possesses (in most cases) magical properties while an ordinary pendant doesn’t.

zenith-pendragon said:
It’s probably late to budge in, but I think an implication would be more suitable, since an amulet possesses (in most cases) magical properties while an ordinary pendant doesn’t.

The main issue is being able to tell that by looking at it. How do you tell this has magical properties while this doesn't?

The bulk update request #891 (forum #309702) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

user_187249 said:
The bulk update request #891 has been rejected.

create implication neckwear (2260) -> clothing (1903253)
create implication neckwear (2260) -> neckgear (0)
create implication amulet (6) -> jewelry (217582)
create implication collar (235734) -> neckgear (0)
create implication necklace (109015) -> neckgear (0)
create implication neck_ring (1250) -> neckgear (0)
create implication pendant (5305) -> jewelry (217582)
create implication necktie (36951) -> neckwear (2260)
create implication neckerchief (8098) -> neckwear (2260)
create implication scarf (42493) -> neckwear (2260)

Reason: Establishing neckwear/neckgear implications to formally utilize these tags (in a similar manner as headwear/headgear). The neckwear tag will be used for clothing placed on the neck, and the neckgear tag will be used for all types of gear placed on the neck. Let me know if something should be added or edited.

• Also, should amulet be aliased to pendant, or vice versa?

Edits

Edits:

• Removed the implications amulet -> neckgear, pendant -> neckgear, and bow_tie -> neckwear.

EDIT: The bulk update request #891 (forum #309702) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

There are two questions this raises.
Do we want to create a whole neckgear/neckwear implication tree or legitimise them as tags? The two current neckwear implications are very recent, probably from people assuming the neckwear tag was more established than it really was

What's the difference between amulet and pendant, and would we be better off aiiasing them together

snpthecat said:
What's the difference between amulet and pendant, and would we be better off aiiasing them together

Heh, Wikipedia even has a section on this: Amulets are sometimes confused with pendants, small aesthetic objects that hang from necklaces. Any given pendant may indeed be an amulet but so may any other object that purportedly protects its holder from danger.

Amulets are just magical (or purported-to-be-magical) doodads. Keeping it as its own tag feels wrong for TWYS reasons, but I don't know what we'd do with it. I don't think anyone would notice if we aliased amulet to pendant, but it's technically wrong.

snpthecat said:
Do we want to create a whole neckgear/neckwear implication tree or legitimise them as tags? The two current neckwear implications are very recent, probably from people assuming the neckwear tag was more established than it really was

I'm not a fan of the current headgear/headwear split (it's kinda arbitrary and no other clothing tags work like this), so I'm more in favor of having just one of the tags. With that said, I don't think there'd be anything wrong with legitimizing neckwear itself.

The bulk update request #7264 is active.

create alias amulet (6) -> pendant (5305)
create implication pendant (5305) -> jewelry (217582)

Reason: Let's see how others feel about aliasing them together. The difference between amulet and pendant is not strictly twys.

EDIT: The bulk update request #7264 (forum #397501) has been approved by @slyroon.

strikerman said:
Heh, Wikipedia even has a section on this: Amulets are sometimes confused with pendants, small aesthetic objects that hang from necklaces. Any given pendant may indeed be an amulet but so may any other object that purportedly protects its holder from danger.

Amulets are just magical (or purported-to-be-magical) doodads. Keeping it as its own tag feels wrong for TWYS reasons, but I don't know what we'd do with it. I don't think anyone would notice if we aliased amulet to pendant, but it's technically wrong.

I'm not a fan of the current headgear/headwear split (it's kinda arbitrary and no other clothing tags work like this), so I'm more in favor of having just one of the tags. With that said, I don't think there'd be anything wrong with legitimizing neckwear itself.

It is slightly arbitrary, but I believe the distinction was to allow headwear to imply clothing and have headgear not imply clothing. If we lump all the wearable items into neckwear we'll have to imply them individually to clothing

snpthecat said:
It is slightly arbitrary, but I believe the distinction was to allow headwear to imply clothing and have headgear not imply clothing. If we lump all the wearable items into neckwear we'll have to imply them individually to clothing

ughhh fair point

The bulk update request #7264 (forum #397501) has been approved by @slyroon.