Tag Implication: cellphone_camera -> camera

Implicating cellphone_camera -> camera.

Reason: It should also imply cellphone. Also, cameraphone (with or without a space between the words) might be a better name for this than cellphone_camera. I see "cameraphone" in print regularly, but never "cellphone camera."

This tag doesn't even appear to exist?

Disregard this reply.

There's an extra space in the link. cellphone camera exists.

It should only implicate cellphone. A camera is visually distinct.

It's a cellphone with a camera in it, so why shouldn't it also imply camera?

Because of tag purpose.

While it has implied function of a camera, there's no use in polluting the camera tag search by this implication. I agree with implicating to cellphone though, dominant visual element.

Implications for general tags should take place between an object's primary function and a generalized tag for said primary function.

A cameraphone is a cellphone with a camera slapped on, no self-respecting photographer would use a cellphone for anything serious but they work just fine as cellphones. Also nobody looking for cameras would expect to find cameraphones.

Because people searching for camera are probably looking for images with camera-shaped objects in them. Danbooru tags are meant to help people find pictures, not as a universal ontology.

Edit: Haha, double ninja'd. Glad everyone's on the same wavelength here, at least.

What they said. At the risk of overgeneralizing, visual tagging is defined more by form than function.

A cellphone camera has the form of a cellphone. Not of a camera.