BUR #32406 has been approved by @nonamethanks.
create implication floral_print_kimono -> floral_print
Self-explanatory
Posted under Tags
BUR #32406 has been approved by @nonamethanks.
create implication floral_print_kimono -> floral_print
Self-explanatory
No matter how prevalent they are, I consider using composite *_print_(attire) tags feels redundant. While it can generally cover two-tag searches (print_* floral_print).
Previous (topic #25861)
Red_Terror said:
No matter how prevalent they are, I consider using composite *_print_(attire) tags feels redundant. While it can generally cover two-tag searches (print_* floral_print).
Previous (topic #25861)
I think given the high percentage of these being with other print objects with different prints, this implication should be approved.
The broad print clothing tags are frankly too broad and should be split amongst their specific prints. Outside of having no clue what kind of print it is, if specific print clothing tags were more common people would likely stop using the broader tags because they don't actually add much value in search or tagging in comparison to more specific print clothing tags.
We don't do this for tags like argyle, checkered, or striped forcing the garments with them under a tag like "patterned_shirt" and forcing users to use two-tag searches like "argyle patterned_shirt" so it seems nonsensical we're doing it for prints.
Updated
The bulk update request #32406 (forum #310626) has been approved by @nonamethanks.