Topic: Implications of eating specific foods

The bulk update request #7488 is pending approval.

create implication eating_bread (8) -> eating_food (4757)
create implication eating_cake (97) -> eating_food (4757)
create implication eating_cheese (8) -> eating_food (4757)
create implication eating_donut (11) -> eating_food (4757)
create implication eating_fruit (48) -> eating_food (4757)
create implication eating_pie (8) -> eating_food (4757)
create implication eating_sandwich (19) -> eating_food (4757)
create implication eating_spaghetti (13) -> eating_food (4757)

Reason: Per similar cases of existing implicated tags:
eating_burger -> eating_food
eating_pizza -> eating_food

eating pizza and eating burger are now aliased instead of implying eating food
topic #40443

I agree with SNP. This is getting too specific. It's best to just alias them to eating_food instead.

snpthecat said:
eating pizza and eating burger are now aliased instead of implying eating food
topic #40443

clawstripe said:
I agree with SNP. This is getting too specific. It's best to just alias them to eating_food instead.

In that case, should the entirety of holding_food implications be aliased away as well?

thegreatwolfgang said:
In that case, should the entirety of holding_food implications be aliased away as well?

Probably. The same argument would apply there.

clawstripe said:
Probably. The same argument would apply there.

In another case (and apologies for the slippery slope), should holding_weapon implications be aliased away as well?
I'm taking into account of the recent failure of topic #43874 and questioning the need to jump through so many implications to reach the destination tag (i.e., holding_object -> holding_weapon -> holding_melee_weapon -> holding_polearm -> holding_spear).

thegreatwolfgang said:
In another case (and apologies for the slippery slope), should holding_weapon implications be aliased away as well?
I'm taking into account of the recent failure of topic #43874 and questioning the need to jump through so many implications to reach the destination tag (i.e., holding_object -> holding_weapon -> holding_melee_weapon -> holding_polearm -> holding_spear).

I was kind of wondering that myself. I'm kind of thinking that we don't, but further discussion would be a good idea.

thegreatwolfgang said:
In another case (and apologies for the slippery slope), should holding_weapon implications be aliased away as well?
I'm taking into account of the recent failure of topic #43874 and questioning the need to jump through so many implications to reach the destination tag (i.e., holding_object -> holding_weapon -> holding_melee_weapon -> holding_polearm -> holding_spear).

holding_[object] tags should probably be kept. dan/gelbooru has hundreds of holding [object] tags and shows warranty, meanwhile anything eating_[object] tags has very minimal to none usage.

snake-girl said:
holding_[object] tags should probably be kept. dan/gelbooru has hundreds of holding [object] tags and shows warranty, meanwhile anything eating_[object] tags has very minimal to none usage.

Danbooru has a two tag search limit for default users, though :P