create implication libra -> zodiac

Link to implication

libra is just an example but Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius, and Pisces tags all reference the zodiac.

EDIT: This tag implication has been rejected because it was not approved within 60 days.

EDIT: The tag implication libra -> zodiac has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

The question is whether all uses of the symbols want the zodiac tag. Say you had something which had just one of the symbols in a way that didn't directly reference the zodiac or astrology (eg. as a logo). Should this get the zodiac tag or not?

Secondly, given the amount of uses of these tags in total, and the relatively high proportion of them that don't match what the wikis say (what's with konpaku_youmu gemini for instance?), are these common enough to warrant implications?

I had thought the zodiac tag was for depictions of the astrological signs as a group, like in post #1516021 or post #2701616, but it seems like this is a minority viewpoint. In practice, this tag seems to get tacked on wherever any one symbol is depicted. The effect of this is that there's no good way to search for images that reference the entire zodiac rather than just a single symbol.

Annoyingly, the zodiac wiki describes what the individual zodiac signs are, but not how the tag itself is supposed to be used.

I think the use of the symbols would warrant the zodiac tag given that these symbols are intended to reference something that is a part of the zodiac. Creating a definition for a group that currently isn't well defined is what I want to do.

This tag implication has been rejected because it was not approved within 60 days.

The tag implication libra -> zodiac has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.