Tag moves: some *_print tags -> something else

Reason:

To distinguish these tags from the "real" tags of print: bear_print, cat_print, frog_print, etc. (whose meaning basically is: a "bear" drawn on clothes, a "cat" drawn on clothes, etc; probably they can be drawn on objects too, I'm not sure)

I believe tiger_print, for example, should be for tigers drawn on clothes, too, (post #600220, post #808119) but now it means something else.

Disclaimer:

The new names are merely suggestions. I'd accept any other good name.

Tag moves:

• paw_print -> paw_mark
• "the mark a paw makes when moist with ink and pressed on the ground"
• floral_print -> flower_(symbol) (compare: star/star_(sky) and heart/heart_(organ))
• "symbolic bidimensional patterns based on real-life flowers"
• cow_print -> cow_pattern
• "the black/white pattern of spots found in cow fur"
• tiger_print -> tiger_pattern
• "the black/orange pattern of stripes found in tiger fur"
• leopard_print -> leopard_pattern
• "the black/orange pattern of spots found in leopard fur"
• piano_print -> piano_pattern
• "the black/white pattern of keys of a piano"

These meanings between "" were typed by me, based on the contents of each tag.

+1
Seems to make sense.
Can't think of anything that it might conflict with at the moment anyway

I'm going to have to disagree with at least the first two proposed moves. I see no reason to change paw_print, as pretty much everything there is a fictionalized print a paw would leave behind is a printing of the paw, not a direct depiction of a paw. It is also by far much more common to depict indirectly the paw as opposed to direct depictions. I think you need some examples before trying to sell this idea. Real marks on the ground could easily be labeled animal_tracks if you're trying to label real marks on the ground.

floral_print should not be aliased to a flower_(symbol) tag. A symbol is something that should be simple, images under the floral print tag vary from really intricate to simple symbol representations of flowers. The fact that there are really complex forms though should rule out trying to label it as a "symbol."

To be honest I'm not seeing any reason the rest should be done either, as they seem highly unnecessary. If there needs to be a tag that is defined as only depicting the animal then I'd say retool/clean up the animal_print tag (if it needs to be specialized have it like animal_print_(<animal>) with short cuts like /apbear or /apcat). Additionally most of these depictions already belong under the print_panties tag which is used for depictions of characters on panties.

As for piano_print, if that really is even a problem then it could be keyboard_print or piano_key_print.

Taking a second look, piano print probably wouldn't need to be changed unless a distinction was to be made between the one on clothing,and the kind used for backgrounds/as a symbol

The *_print -> *_mark/pattern sounds good on paper,but NWF raises a good point,especially about the flowers

-1 for reasons NWF has given.

I highly disagree with changing paw_print and floral_print. As for the remainder, I see no good reason to move them either.

I also agree that these changes are unnecessary for the reasons given. Cow_pattern, tiger_pattern, and leopard_pattern are the least problematic, but I don't see much need for the corresponding *_print to indicate prints of the whole animal, and feel it will be difficult to keep people from polluting these tags and fragmenting the concepts if we did decide move them. After all using "tiger print" to mean a striped design is very natural English. Using it to mean an entire tiger is less natural.