Tag Implication: tea_set -> teacup & teapot

Implicating tea_set -> teacup.
Implicating tea_set -> teapot.

Reason: Means a tea set must at least contain a teacup and a teapot. Otherwise, it's not a set. At least that would be my definition of a tea set.

I had a quick look at the posts and all feature a cup and pot = doesn't seem like it needs cleanup. Most of them also include a tray and saucer, but most != all.

edit: Okay, I might have found an exception to the teacup implication. Assuming post #417332 counts as tea_set and not as some set for serving hot sake. That cup looks like a sakazuki.

I don't really think we need to imply tea_set -> teacup & teapot.

A tea_set can generally still be a set, even without a tray or saucer, correct?

(off topic, but thanks for enlightening me as to what Merupo was on post #816215)

RaymooHakurei said:
I don't really think we need to imply tea_set -> teacup & teapot.

A tea_set can generally still be a set, even without a tray or saucer, correct?

I don't know if tea_set with its 50 posts needs to exist at all. For me it's a combination of "must" and "can" tags where teacup and teapot are "must", tray and saucer are "can". It's not bad to have, anyway.

That's why I didn't include those 2 (tray and saucer) in the implication suggestion. And even if they were needed, it could be that they the saucer is just not visible behind the tray's curved edge.
(off topic: you're welcome)

Looking at post #789703, post #794264 and post #791525, all three posts should have the tea_set tag. Maybe an edit at the wiki for tea_set saying that "If the post has a tea_pot, tea_cup and saucer whether or not it's being held in a tray in one image, disregard placing tea_cup and tea_pot and place the tea_set" instead?

Well, if Tag A is made up of Tag B and C, we'd still need at the least to tag B and C, not just A. Assuming B and C are already in use at least, and can appear on their own.