The tag implication #66332 piercing -> jewelry is pending approval.

Reason: The term "piercing" is almost always used to refer to a piece of jewelry worn in a body part that has been pierced, or at least used that way often enough that I feel the implication makes sense.

Edit: There are piercings that aren't considered jewelry, such as ear_tag, so I wouldn't recommend approving this implication; I've made one for ring_piercing -> jewelry instead.

I would not consider ear tags jewelry, but that tag transitively implies piercing. There's probably more exceptions that make this not a good implication.

it'd be better to have individual piercing jewelery tags, like ring_piercing, imply jewelry instead.

dba_afish said:
it'd be better to have individual piercing jewelery tags, like ring_piercing, imply jewelry instead.

I was considering creating an implication for ring_piercing -> jewelry, but I was already creating one for ring_piercing -> piercing and didn't want to create any redundant implications just in case this one was approved. The ear_tag case does make a good point though; I've gone ahead and created the other implication since it refers to a specific type of jewelry.

IIRC, one of the reasons why piercing (419k posts) was kept separate from jewelry (249k posts) was because it was a very large category by its own.
While it may be technically accurate to consider them as jewelry, it makes jewelry -piercing searches impractical if they were implied together.
That was years ago though, so I'm not sure if sentiments have changed.

leafdapple said:
I would not consider ear tags jewelry, but that tag transitively implies piercing. There's probably more exceptions that make this not a good implication.

That’s actually a pretty weird implication. I don’t think I agree with that.

The body piercing Wikipedia article regards piercings as a form of cosmetic body modification. There’s no mention of cattle tags or other utilitarian or non-cosmetic flesh piercing situations. It’s like using a very literal definition of "piercing" which counts anything penetrating the flesh, in which case it should also be implied by nailed and impalement and crucifixion.
The important question to consider here is what people are looking for when they search piercing. I *think* they’re looking for cosmetic body modifications. I do not think they’re looking for cattle tags, like… post #1658992

spe said:
The important question to consider here is what people are looking for when they search piercing. I *think* they’re looking for cosmetic body modifications. I do not think they’re looking for cattle tags, like… post #1658992

What about instances like
post #4743584 post #5293277
Nose rings are common depictions on cattle, minotaurs especially. I wouldn't consider them jewelry automatically (sometimes maybe, depending on the material or other connected adornments, but not always), but they are for sure piercings.

watsit said:
What about instances like
post #4743584 post #5293277
Nose rings are common depictions on cattle, minotaurs especially. I wouldn't consider them jewelry automatically (sometimes maybe, depending on the material or other connected adornments, but not always), but they are for sure piercings.

Yeah, that’s a difficult one. The only practical difference there seems to be context. It probably wouldn’t be considered jewelry on 'normal' non-anthropomorphic cattle, but it probably would be in any other context. I think it counts even on Minotaurs, personally, since they seem to be an aesthetic modification rather than utilitarian. The jewelry kind is, of course, based on the kind used to control cattle. They’re supposed to resemble those, that’s the whole point.

So, my sticking point is still that a piercing, at least by Wikipedia’s definition, is necessarily a cosmetic body modification. Anything else is not a piercing, even if flesh is being pierced. The item and process may be the same, but the purpose is not. It goes back to issues like nailed - why is the flesh being pierced? Some actual piercings are designed to look like nails, but there’s clearly a difference between that and the kind of thing that the nailed tag is for.

It might be feasible to try to split actual cattle rings into their own tag which doesn’t imply piercing. I suspect there are very few posts that couldn’t at least be arguably considered to be cosmetic, so it probably wouldn’t take much to keep them separate. That might be the most useful option (the alternatives being considering all nose rings to be jewelry, or having to manually tag jewelry on almost every ring_piercing post).

spe said:
So, my sticking point is still that a piercing, at least by Wikipedia’s definition, is necessarily a cosmetic body modification. Anything else is not a piercing, even if flesh is being pierced. The item and process may be the same, but the purpose is not. It goes back to issues like nailed - why is the flesh being pierced? Some actual piercings are designed to look like nails, but there’s clearly a difference between that and the kind of thing that the nailed tag is for.

I mean, if we start getting into the nitty gritty there's definitely going to be some weirdness, because we also have characters with weird anatomies and stuff, and what if it's-- not a piercing, like, it's not a body modification. if a character is semi-permeable or just has that swiss cheese shit goin' on like a changeling a piece of jewellery that passes through a part of the body still _feels_ like it ought to be considered piercing (and through implications might already be) even if it's not, really...

ehhh... maybe we should use piercing just for jewellery... but an ear tag also still feels like a piercing to me too...

ʚ(ϵ⁰~⁰)϶

dba_afish said:
ehhh... maybe we should use piercing just for jewellery... but an ear tag also still feels like a piercing to me too...

ʚ(ϵ⁰~⁰)϶

I remembered another exception! Corset piercings are sometimes drawn without studs/rings/whatever you call them (like in post #4786439 and post #4226573). In these instances the tag of piercing should apply, because they clearly represent the corset piercings we see in real life, but the jewelry tag shouldn't apply. I wouldn't consider the ribbon alone to be jewelry.

leafdapple said:
I remembered another exception! Corset piercings are sometimes drawn without studs/rings/whatever you call them (like in post #4786439 and post #4226573). In these instances the tag of piercing should apply, because they clearly represent the corset piercings we see in real life, but the jewelry tag shouldn't apply. I wouldn't consider the ribbon alone to be jewelry.

Well, necklace implies jewelry even though they’re often made of string or ribbon instead of a metal chain. I think a ribbon alone can probably be considered jewelry depending on how it’s worn, especially something semi-permanent like a piercing.