The bulk update request #5745 is pending approval.

create alias gold_earring (0) -> gold_ear_ring (1207)
create implication gold_ear_ring (1207) -> ear_ring (104274)
create implication gold_ear_ring (1207) -> gold_(metal) (27731)

Reason: While gold_earring has more posts, the more popular general ear_ring tag contains an underscore. And earring is aliased to ear_ring, so should gold_earring be aliased to gold_ear_ring for consistency, and implicated to ear_ring and gold_(metal) for obvious reasons.

I would also say that ear ring (or more specifically, the base piercing tag) should imply jewelry, but it currently does not, and I'd rather not have the discussion here that this should imply gold jewelry, even though I think it should. That discussion is out of scope for this request.

I'd rather fix ear_ring to earring and gold_ear_ring to gold_earring.

hjfduitloxtrds said:
I'd rather fix ear_ring to earring and gold_ear_ring to gold_earring.

why?

juansanchez said:
why?

Because technically earring is correctly spelled without the space. Aliasing gold_earring to gold_ear_ring would be less correct. I'd much rather ear_ring be aliased to earring instead. Also colors. Every color earring would need to be aliased to *_ear_ring instead of *_earring, so more work would need to be done.

We have nose_ring and finger_ring, so ear_ring would be along the same lines. Also there, finger_ring is less likely to be confused with fingering.

Several color earrings tags are also inconsistent. Silver_earring as well as *_ear_ring. Both black and white ear_ring, but other colors seem to be spelled both ways tags *_ear_ring and *_earring also. Might be a better idea to fix all just for consistency.

urielfrys said:
We have nose_ring and finger_ring, so ear_ring would be along the same lines. Also there, finger_ring is less likely to be confused with fingering.

I've just never seen ear_ring spelled with a space outside of these tags. Nose_ring is more common with a space. Nobody really says "finger_ring" that's probably just to avoid confusion while tagging. To avoid further unnecessary debate, I'm OK with either option, as long as it's consistent and understandable.

The main problem with the ear ring tag superceding 'earring' is that most of what are commonly referred to as 'earrings' (such as pearl earrings) are not actually ring piercings.

pleaseletmein said:
The main problem with the ear ring tag superceding 'earring' is that most of what are commonly referred to as 'earrings' (such as pearl earrings) are not actually ring piercings.

Yeah I would agree that "earrings" and "ear rings" aren't actually the same. To me "earrings" are essentially a catchall identical to ear_piercing as they are essentially synonymous. "Ear rings" however, to me, are literal hoop (ring) style jewelry as ear piercings. Literal ring shaped piercings in the ears. Which is even where this comes from because I was tagging a post which is a ear_piercing that we would 100% call "earrings" irl, but doesn't fit the ear_ring tag as they weren't rings, they were diamond shaped dangle earrings:
post #4399187

But there is a dangle_ear_piercing tag, but it has 3 posts and all the same tagger. Perhaps tomorrow I can populate this tag a bit more and hopefully get people using it.

pleaseletmein said:
The main problem with the ear ring tag superceding 'earring' is that most of what are commonly referred to as 'earrings' (such as pearl earrings) are not actually ring piercings.

hmm good point. Earring is often used to refer to multiple types of ear piercings while ear_ring specifically means a ring piercing. Maybe both types of tags should be made and not specifically aliased. Perhaps ear_ring should implicate earring but not the other way around.

hjfduitloxtrds said:
hmm good point. Earring is often used to refer to multiple types of ear piercings while ear_ring specifically means a ring piercing. Maybe both types of tags should be made and not specifically aliased. Perhaps ear_ring should implicate earring but not the other way around.

I think an earring tag would be identical to ear_piercing and only confuse people using ear_ring as its intended meaning. Aliasing earring to ear_piercing would also probably harm ear_ring proper tagging.

definitelynotafurry4 said:
I think an earring tag would be identical to ear_piercing and only confuse people using ear_ring as its intended meaning. Aliasing earring to ear_piercing would also probably harm ear_ring proper tagging.

Wouldn't aliasing gold_earring to gold ear_ring cause a similar issue? Like if people tag gold_earring for any type of earring made of gold rather than gold_ear_ring, which specifically means ring piercings?

hjfduitloxtrds said:
Wouldn't aliasing gold_earring to gold ear_ring cause a similar issue? Like if people tag gold_earring for any type of earring made of gold rather than gold_ear_ring, which specifically means ring piercings?

If we were to go the route of having a gold ear piercing, for complete clarity, I think gold_ear_piercing would be consistent with current tags and more clear.

Should earring be disambiguated? And ear_ring too?

ear_ring_(ring)? ("Hello! Who's calling?")

This would be similar to arrow? (arrow_(disambiguation))

urielfrys said:
Should earring be disambiguated? And ear_ring too?

ear_ring_(ring)? ("Hello! Who's calling?")

This would be similar to arrow? (arrow_(disambiguation))

A disambiguation will never pass with the current administration, so let's avoid those for now. (and it's not really disambiguation worthy)