The bulk update request #7775 has been rejected.

create implication red_gem (493) -> gem (25281)
create implication orange_gem (32) -> gem (25281)
create implication yellow_gem (201) -> gem (25281)
create implication green_gem (143) -> gem (25281)
create implication teal_gem (4) -> gem (25281)
create implication blue_gem (233) -> gem (25281)
create implication purple_gem (147) -> gem (25281)
create implication pink_gem (50) -> gem (25281)
create implication brown_gem (1) -> gem (25281)
create implication tan_gem (1) -> gem (25281)
create implication black_gem (3) -> gem (25281)
create implication white_gem (3) -> gem (25281)
create implication grey_gem (0) -> gem (25281)
create implication multicolored_gem (1) -> gem (25281)

Reason: Colored gems are gems.

EDIT: The bulk update request #7775 (forum #402469) has been rejected by @Nimphia.

nimphia said:
Reason: Colored gems are gems.

Duplicate of BUR #5853 on topic #41096, with the exception for multicolored_gem.

How would these tags work with ones like ruby_(gem) (red gem), emerald_(gem) (green gem), sapphire_(gem) (blue gem), etc? Aren't they basically the same thing?

thegreatwolfgang said:
Duplicate of BUR #5853 on topic #41096, with the exception for multicolored_gem.

I forgot there was already a BUR, woops. Should've checked, thanks.

watsit said:
How would these tags work with ones like ruby_(gem) (red gem), emerald_(gem) (green gem), sapphire_(gem) (blue gem), etc? Aren't they basically the same thing?

TBH I'd already object to those tags being used that way because... There are pink rubies, and sapphires come in all kinds of colors...

Technically rubies and sapphires are the same substance, all non-red gems of that substance are sapphires.

The bulk update request #7775 (forum #402469) has been rejected by @Nimphia.

watsit said:
How would these tags work with ones like ruby_(gem) (red gem), emerald_(gem) (green gem), sapphire_(gem) (blue gem), etc? Aren't they basically the same thing?

To be honest, I am with @Nimphia on this one. It could also potentially fall into TWYK territory since we aren't tagging based on colour alone.
While the gem wiki does mention the typical colours for these gems, they aren't always depicted as such and it would be bad to alias <color>_gem straight to them.

For example, even though diamonds are mentioned to be "white", it most commonly depicted as blue in artworks.
Moreover, jade and emeralds overlap in colour (i.e., green_gem) and appear virtually identical.

thegreatwolfgang said:
To be honest, I am with @Nimphia on this one. It could also potentially fall into TWYK territory since we aren't tagging based on colour alone.
While the gem wiki does mention the typical colours for these gems, they aren't always depicted as such and it would be bad to alias <color>_gem straight to them.

Might it be a good idea to invalidate/alias away ruby/sapphire/etc then? Since they can vary in color, different gems can sometimes be the same color, and there's no requirement for particular gems to be particular shapes, it would seem to be mostly TWYK or guesswork. It's not like we can see the mineral compounds the gems are made of in a drawing (unless it's a kind of schematic, but that's not what these tags are for).

thegreatwolfgang said:
For example, even though diamonds are mentioned to be "white", it most commonly depicted as blue in artworks.

Or transparent (with prism reflections).

If you alias gem types to their commom color, you end up agreeing with our current system. Funny how that works. Bit of a losing position.

The larger issue IMO is how assuming color = type excludes almost all other similarly colored gems from consideration. So we end up with cases like espeon's red forehead gem getting pigeonholed into ruby when that's probably overly presumptive for a fantasy creature. Could be garnet or spinel.

Sometimes we know the gem's lore but our gem naming forces a "wrong" name. Speaking of fantasy, why would gems on an alien planet or alternative universe correspond with our own forced gem naming? One of those storytelling issues.

Edit: quote beat my correction. I don't really think about pokemon specifics lol

abadbird said:
If you alias gem types to their commom color, you end up agreeing with our current system. Funny how that works. Bit of a losing position.

The larger issue IMO is how assuming color = type excludes almost all other similarly colored gems from consideration. So we end up with cases like espeon's red forehead gem getting pigeonholed into ruby when that's probably overly presumptive for a fantasy creature. Could be garnet, spinel, or what's left of espeon's evo stone.

Sometimes we know the gem's lore but our gem naming forces a "wrong" name. Speaking of fantasy, why would gems on an alien planet or alternative universe correspond with our own forced gem naming? One of those storytelling issues.

What if we aliased ruby, sapphire, etc. to gem? and then we can tag <color>_gem instead

watsit said:
Might it be a good idea to invalidate/alias away ruby/sapphire/etc then?

wandering_spaniel said:
What if we aliased ruby, sapphire, etc. to gem? and then we can tag <color>_gem instead

While I'm for aliasing them away to gem, I could see there being potential problems with simply calling them by their colours (considering our quite limited colour vocabulary).

Say I want to find posts that feature diamonds, I would need to search through ~white_gem ~blue_gem ~translucent_gem just to find something.
Even then, it would overlap with a lot of existing gems such as pearls (white), sapphires (dark blue), etc.

wandering_spaniel said:
What if we aliased ruby, sapphire, etc. to gem? and then we can tag <color>_gem instead

Oh, I still think an alias to colors for most gems would be very safe. Mass update first to corresponding color and then alias to gem would be even safer but probably unnecessary. If someone tags a normal gem when its off-color is depicted, they are just being contrarian IMO, unless the gem is a highly recognizable variant like black star sapphire. Diamonds were always going to be the odd one out, though. I doubt the tagging there can be consistent.

Pearl should be kept. Pink quartz should be tagged for a very specific shade. Turquoise should also be tagged for a narrow color range. Opal would be pretty recognizable IRL but has broad spectrum potential... But people shouldn't be tagging opal without a good reason. Multicolored tourmaline has a distinct look. We'd still want to keep any amber preserving something. Most of these have more constrained identities than the more common gem tags.