With the recent rise in popularity of white cardigan, i noticed that the *_cardigan tags are in pretty much the same situation as the *_blazer tags .Representing a light version of an already popular garment.

We ended up simplifying the tags for blazer by merging them with the respective jacket tags.
I was wondering if we should do the same with the cardigan tags, and merge them with their respective sweater tags?

Ex: white cardigan -> aliased to -> white sweater and imply cardigan

keonas said:

Ex: white cardigan -> aliased to -> white sweater and imply cardigan

You can't do that unless you want all white sweater images to have the cardigan tag, which would be silly.

+1 to merging color cardigan tags to sweater tags, as I already use the COLOR_sweater tags to describe cardigans. But skylightcrystal is right about the proposed BUR, but I'm guessing that it was just a mistake.

The following is how it should be instead.

alias white_cardigan -> white_sweater
alias black_cardigan -> black_sweater
...
alias COLOR_cardigan -> COLOR_sweater
...
imply cardigan -> sweater

The cardigan unique tags should be kept as cardigan though, such as open cardigan and naked cardigan.

IMO cardigans, jackets, and coats should all have an umbrella *_outerwear for colors

...ok

I didn't think this would cause confusion :D

Maybe it's more clear like this:
white cardigan -> (aliased to white sweater & imply cardigan)

Also yes, i agree with Broken BrokenEagle98 here

BrokenEagle98 said:
The cardigan unique tags should be kept as cardigan though, such as open cardigan and naked cardigan.

I don't agree with this though.

fossilnix said:

IMO cardigans, jackets, and coats should all have an umbrella *_outerwear for colors

They're pretty different as garment, both in material, purpose but, also in that you can wear one over the other.
So, if you have a red sweater and black jacket, in fossilnix's proposal, we'd end up with the confusing red_outerwear + black_outerwear, neither referring specifically to any of the 2.
Either that or, we'd just end up tag to upper most element, which is counter intuitive with the way we tag just about anything of note.

keonas said:

Maybe it's more clear like this:
white cardigan -> (aliased to white sweater & imply cardigan)

That's the thing - you can't do that. If you alias white cardigan to white sweater, then they are the same tag. If you then implicate this to cardigan then everything with the white sweater tag will get the cardigan tag as a result.

keonas said:

I don't agree with this though.

Sweaters an non-openable though so it wouldn't make any sense to have an open sweater tag instead of open cardigan, it could also be confused for open-chest sweater.

Unbreakable said:

Sweaters an non-openable though so it wouldn't make any sense to have an open sweater tag instead of open cardigan, it could also be confused for open-chest sweater.

I was referring to what fossilnix said
it was in the subject -> item order.

keonas said:

I was referring to what fossilnix said
it was in the subject -> item order.

Oh, nevermind then. The lack of a : confused me.

skylightcrystal said:

That's the thing - you can't do that. If you alias white cardigan to white sweater, then they are the same tag. If you then implicate this to cardigan then everything with the white sweater tag will get the cardigan tag as a result.

Indeed. This is why none of the colored neckwear (bowties,neckties,ascots) or colored legwear (thighhighs,kneehighs,socks) implicate their base form. It is impossible at this time to have an alias and an implication for the same consequent.