Implicating demon_horns -> horns.

Reason: Subset.

Adding some for the same reason:
- dragon_horns -> horns
- fake_horns -> horns

dean_exia said:
- dragon_horns -> horns

Ok, but most of those look like antlers to me.

S1eth said:
Ok, but most of those look like antlers to me.

Yeah, generally the eastern_dragons look like that, I think. I'd be go OK with retagging those as antlers or creating dragon_antlers for them.

S1eth said:
Ok, but most of those look like antlers to me.

A lot of them do look like that, true, but not all.
That being said, personally, I don't see much need for demon_horns and dragon_horns, they are not defined and most of the time regular horns tag would work just as fine.

Also, antlers may not technically be horns but they certainly do look like ones. So I think antlers -> horns implication would be useful too.

MyrMindservant said:
Also, antlers may not technically be horns but they certainly do look like ones. So I think antlers -> horns implication would be useful too.

No.

Hillside_Moose said:
No.

Care to explain your position?

Antlers are visually distinct from horns. post #1271189 is in no way similar to post #1171074.

Ah, that's not what I meant.
Of course they are visually distinct, that's why we have a separate tag for them. I wasn't talking about that.

What I tried to say is that "antlers are the large horn-like appendages" (description from wikipedia) and they are similar in many ways. Both mainly consist of bones, located on the head and have similar functions.
So I thought that implication from antlers to horns may be useful.

If native English speakers frequently use horns as a catch-all term then an antlers -> horns implication seems pretty reasonable. I'd certainly want something like post #1171074 to show up when I search for horns.

And I wouldn't, because I actually know what antlers look like, and I don't make the connection with horns at all.

If people get confused and want to tag both, whatever, but don't lump all antlers with horns.

Personally given their visual difference (antlers branched, horns not branched), I wouldn't want them under the same grouping.

I know horn is used a lot for similar structures on animals, but I can't really say that from my own experience that people would call what deer have horns when they're familiar with the word antlers. The branched nature of the structure probably makes it much easier for people to not lump it in with horns mentally, as people likely more readily think of a non-branched structure when hearing the word "horn."

Hillside_Moose said:
And I wouldn't, because I actually know what antlers look like, and I don't make the connection with horns at all.

If people get confused and want to tag both, whatever, but don't lump all antlers with horns.

You're way too fast to assume that people just don't know what antlers are or how they look. There are some good reasons for antlers <-> horns association.

Antlers are really similar to horns, occasionally they are even referred as a type of horns, this can be easily verified by checking wikipedia and/or multiple dictionaries.
Also, not everyone is from a region where such a distinction even exists. Neither of the languages that I speak natively have a separate word for antlers and as far as I can see this is also true for a lot of other places.

I don't feel too strong about this implication, but it is not baseless and you shouldn't treat it as such.

MyrMindservant said:
Also, not everyone is from a region where such a distinction even exists. Neither of the languages that I speak natively have a separate word for antlers and as far as I can see this is also true for a lot of other places.

This is the case for me as well, but Danbooru is an English site and what matters in these cases is how native English speakers use the word. If they don't even see a connection, then that's that.

Fred1515 said:
This is the case for me as well, but Danbooru is an English site and what matters in these cases is how native English speakers use the word.

I understand and agree with this. That's why I didn't mention it while suggesting the implication. I also won't object too much if the implication gets discarded in the end.

What I do not agree with is the notion that these terms are not connected or that implication idea was baseless, because that's objectively not true.

S1eth said:
Ok, but most of those look like antlers to me.

As EB said, one distinctive trait of eastern_dragons is antlers. But what about other horns like post #1260130? Clearly, they are the horns of a dragon girl.

MyrMindservant said:
That being said, personally, I don't see much need for demon_horns and dragon_horns, they are not defined and most of the time regular horns tag would work just as fine.

You got the point. For example, post #1270679 and post #1240779 exhibit strong resemblance to sheep horns. Some just look like the usual, pointy horns.

Hillside_Moose said:
If people get confused and want to tag both, whatever, but don't lump all antlers with horns.

No objections here.

dean_exia said:
As EB said, one distinctive trait of eastern_dragons is antlers. But what about other horns like post #1260130? Clearly, they are the horns of a dragon girl.

If we want to use a single tag like dragon_horns and there are two visually distinct subtypes (horns and antlers, then we cannot create an implication.

As others said, we could of course just tag dragon_girl horns or dragon_girl antlers without using a dragon_horns (or similar) tag at all.

@MyrMindservant: I'd say visual difference and better searchability for each individual tag wins here.

Also someone please ban MelGibson.

General rule: if an object in one specific situation can't be reliably visually distinguished from the same kind of object in other situations, it probably doesn't need a separate tag.

Thus is dragon horns just look like other horns (or in other cases, antlers), then just use horns (or antlers).