Posted under Tags
BUR #23735 has been rejected.
create implication flats -> shoes
create implication oxfords -> shoes
create implication crocs -> shoes
create implication converse -> shoes
create implication dress_shoes -> shoes
create implication waraji -> sandals
Making sure the generic tag wasn't forgot when the precise tag was added.
I removed the implication for geta. I was informed that many posts and characters such as shameimaru_aya use non-traditional geta (tengu-geta) that aren't fit for the description of sandals. I'm not sure about the brand reference part. I don't believe that's common enough to not merit a descriptive tag implied.
thelieutenant said:
we dont usually do brand implications since you can have the brand referenced without their item
still no on geta
Can you point to a single post of converse or crocs that don't feature the shoes? I find it highly unlikely it'll ever get to a point where they are somehow featured in an image and the footwear is not. Worst case scenario these can be appended with a _(shoe).
zetsubousensei said:
Can you point to a single post of converse or crocs that don't feature the shoes? I find it highly unlikely it'll ever get to a point where they are somehow featured in an image and the footwear is not. Worst case scenario these can be appended with a _(shoe).
post #4608851 is vans but its the brand not the shoe, and converse also sells hats
The bulk update request #23735 (forum #270572) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.
