Topic: [APPROVED] nipple_circular_barbell implications

The bulk update request #12688 is active.

create implication nipple_circular_barbell (27) -> nipple_piercing (132936)
create implication nipple_circular_barbell (27) -> circular_barbell_piercing (1504)

Reason: Matches septum_circular_barbell

EDIT: The bulk update request #12688 (forum #473696) has been approved by @spe.

The bulk update request #12688 (forum #473696) has been approved by @spe.

Maybe nipple_circular_barbell should imply nipple_barbell?

I wouldn't. For searching purposes it's better to not have square imply rectangle and tell people to search for ~square ~rectangle than to have no tag for rectangles that are not squares.

errorist said:
I wouldn't. For searching purposes it's better to not have square imply rectangle and tell people to search for ~square ~rectangle than to have no tag for rectangles that are not squares.

Isn't that the same as saying dog shouldn't imply canine? That doesn't seem like a very sustainable approach to implications.

For the same reason bird does not imply dinosaur, even if it is technically true: trading some accuracy in implications for convenience in searches can be desirable sometimes.

errorist said:
I wouldn't. For searching purposes it's better to not have square imply rectangle and tell people to search for ~square ~rectangle than to have no tag for rectangles that are not squares.

I'm not sure I follow, if square implied rectangle, then searching for a rectangle that isn't a square would be as simple as searching rectangle -square.

"Squares are rectangles" sounds like just as equally straightforward an example as the "eagles are birds" example currently used in the Tag Implications help page now.