Posted under Tags
BUR #44770 has been rejected.
create implication business_card -> card
A business card is a card, of which the wiki includes business cards as an example.
The wiki for card also says:
This tag is for cards physically present inside the image. For an entire image drawn to look like a card or an image of the card face itself, see card (medium).
Similarly, here’s card (medium):
For cards that are physical objects inside the image, see card.
However, (first tag that comes to mind) playing card implies card. Posts such as post #9481128, post #9456333 and post #9249492 (or just check playing_card card_(medium)) end up with both card (medium) and card, even when there is no card present within the image.
So how does it work? Does playing card apply there? If so, should it still imply card?
aster1a said:
However, (first tag that comes to mind) playing card implies card. Posts such as post #9481128, post #9456333 and post #9249492 (or just check playing_card card_(medium)) end up with both card (medium) and card, even when there is no card present within the image.
So how does it work? Does playing card apply there? If so, should it still imply card?
Here's another complication. What about when the image is entirely a business card? Here's one like that: post #4429388 (though, this is the only image like that I could find.)
I think playing_card and business_card should therefore not imply card, but instead have to be manually tagged as either card or card (medium).
floating card is fine though. It can't be both floating and be the entire image.
CrossbowArcanePlus said:
Here's another complication. What about when the image is entirely a business card? Here's one like that: post #4429388 (though, this is the only image like that I could find.)
That looks more like an id card to me. Funnily enough, we have id card (medium), but it has very few posts.
aster1a said:
That looks more like an id card to me. Funnily enough, we have id card (medium), but it has very few posts.
Oh yeah, my bad. Going a bit too fast I guess.
In that case, I agree that business_card should imply card.
Back on playing_card - and this logic extends to some future situation where a possible business_card_(medium) image is posted - I think playing_card should imply card, and there should be a playing_card_(medium) tag that implies card_(medium), and one should only cross tags over between those two camps if there is indeed a playing-card like image which contains a depiction of a playing card within that "whole image" playing card. The images you posted shouldn't be tagged playing_card card imo, because a playing_card is not depicted in the image. Just like how a card_(medium) image isn't (necessarily) tagged card.
BUR #45769 has been approved by @evazion.
mass update playing_card card_(medium) -favgroup:46136 -favgroup:46140 -favgroup:46135 -> playing_card_(medium) -playing_card -card
mass update favgroup:46135 -> playing_card_(medium)
create implication playing_card_(medium) -> card_(medium)
I think the difficulty above fundamentally stems from a lack of a playing_card_(medium) tag.
In line with that, and with how we have card_(medium) and tarot_(medium), I propose that we should have a playing_card_(medium) tag.
The above BUR creates that tag by adding it to the images in playing_card card_(medium), with manually identified exceptions for card medium images of types card, playing card, and tarot card, that themselves feature a playing card as an object within the image.
Edit:
There is 1 Gold account level image on page 15 in the playing_card card_(medium) search that I was unable to check for a playing card in the image or not, or if the medium is a playing card or some other kind of card. If this BUR passes I'd appreciate if a user with those privileges could make that check for me and fix up any mistag that may have occurred.
Updated by CrossbowArcanePlus
CrossbowArcanePlus said:
There is 1 Gold account level image on page 15 in the playing_card card_(medium) search that I was unable to check for a playing card in the image or not, or if the medium is a playing card or some other kind of card. If this BUR passes I'd appreciate if a user with those privileges could make that check for me and fix up any mistag that may have occurred.
The medium is a playing card. There is no playing card as an object in the image itself.
The bulk update request #44769 (forum #373569) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.
The bulk update request #44770 (forum #373570) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.
The bulk update request #45769 (forum #377061) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.
The bulk update request #45769 (forum #377061) has been approved by @evazion.
The card tag is kind of a mess. I think it should be limited to the kind of cards used in card games: playing cards, tarot cards, trading cards, Uno, etc. Things like business cards and id cards shouldn't be included.
evazion said:
The card tag is kind of a mess. I think it should be limited to the kind of cards used in card games: playing cards, tarot cards, trading cards, Uno, etc. Things like business cards and id cards shouldn't be included.
So, even going by their wikis, card would essentially be an umbrella tag for cards used to play. "Playing" cards, though playing card itself is for a specific set of cards. That aside, I guess business card should be removed from the examples you added in the card wiki. Or perhaps kept as a non-example? The "any other type of card" part could mislead too.
As for trading cards, like card/card (medium), playing card/playing card (medium) and tarot card/tarot (medium), should they also be split into two tags, one for the object itself and one for the medium? The tag is currently used for both, which is probably the reason it doesn’t imply card either.
Edit: I suppose credit card should also stay separate?
Updated by aster1a
