BUR #57424 has been approved by @nonamethanks.
create implication ring_pop -> candy
create implication ring_pop -> ring
Updated by gzb
Posted under Tags
BUR #57424 has been approved by @nonamethanks.
create implication ring_pop -> candy
create implication ring_pop -> ring
Updated by gzb
The jewelry wiki is incredibly broad so it still falls into the "thing worn on the body decoratively" aspect of it. It's just more temporary than other rings.
We don't have a toy_ring or costume_jewlery tag, all rings are just lumped together right now anyway so I don't see an issue with it. Plus most of the posts are making use of the fact that it is a ring being wedding proposals post #9752431 or worn post #10188206
Updated by zetsubousensei
I don't see any real issue with categorizing them under jewelry, that's still basically what they are.
WRS said in forum #433469:
To me, the answer is no, and I feel that it shouldn't be manually tagged with ring either because it's not an actual ring, it's just candy that takes on that form. It would be about as odd as proposing that cigarette candy implies cigarette or that nerf gun implies gun.
And other rings are just pieces of metal that take on that form. Or gemstone, wood, bone, plastics, or electronics. That is to say, a ring is *something* that takes on a ring form. This one also has the added bonus of being used like a ring.
I don't think it's that crazy or outlandish to think that most people are probably not thinking of or tagging non-metals or things not "typically jewelry" as jewelry items, and that's the same angle that I'm looking at it from. A previous example was rope anklet in topic #33789 which skipped the anklet implication because it would have jewelry as one of the upstream tags. To me, a ring pop is just candy, not a piece of jewelry. I wouldn't even think differently just because it's being used in a proposal (this could be changed to any other object yet it wouldn't suddenly become something else).
If it was just a plastic ring, sure. A ring pop specifically, I don't really think so. I'm hard pressed not to see this as a false equivalence. I can still see it for and would call rings made of various metals, gems, bone, other primitive materials and whatever as rings, but ring pops seem like the outlier case to me.
Updated by WRS
but this means if a post has someone wearing something on their finger that looks like a ring you shouldn't tag it as a ring if it isn't jewelry
normally we would just unimply ring from jewelry in that case but the same argument could be made about all the other tags under jewelry.
do you rename ring to ring (jewelry) and then we create a new tag called ring (not jewelry) and put some posts in it until we can make both ring (jewelry) and ring (not jewelry) imply a single parent ring tag? and then everyone is happy?
To be clear, it's just my perspective that I don't think it qualifies for jewelry so I don't agree, but it's not as if I don't see a case for just ignoring the semantics and doing it anyway to make life easier. There's a lot of existing precedent of fake/makeshift objects sharing the same state/tagging as a genuine article, sometimes with an intermediate tag for better categorisation where it makes sense in larger generic object tags.
The number of times where you will actually get this issue of legitimately not tagging XYZ as ABC despite XYZ looking like ABC are far and few since the answer to the other cases is usually to do it anyway. There's a reason why I was talking specifically about ring pops and nothing else. All your other recommendations are completely pointlessly complexifying the situation. It's either it's not a ring or it is one, and a future discussion may be to have an intermediate categorisation instead of directly considering it a ring. That's mostly it.
On that note, I'm going to switch my vote from a hard downvote to a meh, since that's probably more accurately how I feel here.
I know there's the general connotation of jewelry being (precious) metals, but in reality the term "jewelry" is far, far more broad than that, and restricting it to just metal(-y) stuff seems nonsensical. Also I don't see any actual discussion in topic #33789, and the fact a similar question was asked here again shows it's probably not really a resolved. FWIW I would tag a rope anklet as jewelry, same as with other anklets or bracelets.
WRS said in forum #433516:
Care to expand on "seems nonsensical" for discussion's sake instead of just leaving it as a dead end opinion?
Jewellery (or jewelry in American English) consists of decorative items worn for personal adornment such as brooches, rings, necklaces, earrings, pendants, bracelets, and cufflinks
...
For many centuries, metals such as gold and silver, often combined with gemstones, has been the normal material for jewellery. Other materials such as glass, shells, or wood may also be used.
To be honest, it doesn't really add much since it's a reiteration of what you already suggested at the start, and I still hold that I don't really think ring pop in particular qualifies, so it loops back to the top anyway. I'm with you and Wikipedia on everything else - sure, bones, wood, glass, rocks, metals - just not specifically ring pops. ETA: Though now that I look, maybe it's pointless to offer an opinion against it anyway, since candy ring is an alias.
I'm still a bit iffy when it comes to ropes, since you would probably have to set some boundaries as to when it does and doesn't fit as one when on a person.
Updated by WRS
ANON_TOKYO said in forum #433509:
I know there's the general connotation of jewelry being (precious) metals, but in reality the term "jewelry" is far, far more broad than that, and restricting it to just metal(-y) stuff seems nonsensical. Also I don't see any actual discussion in topic #33789, and the fact a similar question was asked here again shows it's probably not really a resolved. FWIW I would tag a rope anklet as jewelry, same as with other anklets or bracelets.
FWIW the ring wiki page explicitly says precious metals whereas jewelry is more broad.
WRS said in forum #433469:
To me, the answer is no, and I feel that it shouldn't be manually tagged with ring either because it's not an actual ring, it's just candy that takes on that form. It would be about as odd as proposing that cigarette candy implies cigarette or that nerf gun implies gun.
The key difference here is that neither of those things actually replicates the function of the original. You're not going to kill anyone by shooting them with a Nerf gun, and you would have great difficulty smoking a candy cigarette as opposed to just eating it.
Ring pops, despite being first and foremost for eating, are also designed to be worn ornamentally like regular rings, however briefly. I can't imagine this much fuss would be made about a ring made of ice, despite it being even less permanent.
ANON_TOKYO said in forum #433509:
FWIW I would tag a rope anklet as jewelry, same as with other anklets or bracelets.
This one I'm not so sure about. We don't tag armbands, wristbands, or thigh straps as jewelry.
I don't think I would make a fuss about a ring made of ice, no, but wouldn't really fully agree with it either because of the upstream implication to jewelry. The only way to settle that in my mind is to make it clear in the wikis. The way the ring wiki is written reads to me like it's specifically for traditionally metal rings. In practice that can't really be true though because we don't have much division in the way rings are tagged, so ring ends up being the de facto tag for all rings, which adds jewelry anyway via implication.
AngryZapdos said in forum #433732:
...
This one I'm not so sure about. We don't tag armbands, wristbands, or thigh straps as jewelry.
While I would say it in casual speech I think it's a fair distinction to make on Danbooru, also because jewelry would just get messy.
WRS said in forum #433733:
I don't think I would make a fuss about a ring made of ice, no, but wouldn't really fully agree with it either because of the upstream implication to jewelry. The only way to settle that in my mind is to make it clear in the wikis. The way the ring wiki is written reads to me like it's specifically for traditionally metal rings. In practice that can't really be true though because we don't have much division in the way rings are tagged, so ring ends up being the de facto tag for all rings, which adds jewelry anyway via implication.
The wiki should be updated, yes, but I think it should be quite obvious that it's a flawed wiki. I get why someone, especially back in 2009 Danbooru, would write it like this. But if a wiki clearly defies common logic (like restricting a super generic term as "ring" to only a specific material), then we should be arguing about what the updated wiki should be, not whether we should follow that clearly flawed definition.
Following that, I propose something like the following, following the Wikipedia description:
A round band meant to be worn as jewelry on the finger. Usually made from metal, it can be made of any material and may be set with gems.
The bulk update request #57424 (forum #431816) has been approved by @nonamethanks.