Duplicate Keywords - List #7 (Proposal for Permanent Merging and Auto-Conversion)

@bradley_kent said: A couple of these are absurd:  Changing man-with-a-tattoo to tattooed-man and woman-with-a-tattoo to tattooed-women should be reversed.  A tattooed-man or tattooed-woman is someone whose body is covered with tattoos, and who may be appearing in a (now, thankfully, outdated) carnival freak show. You've made this point before, but as far as "tattooed-man" and "tattooed-woman," the community overwhelmingly disagrees with you. Just look at the numbers on my list above. The community apparently prefers "tattooed-man" and "tattooed-woman" over "man-with-a-tattoo" and "woman-with-a-tattoo" by about 95%-5% and 96%-4%, respectively. You apparently believe that the keywords "tattooed-woman" and "tattooed-man" can or should apply only to someone with more than one tattoo (someone covered in tattoos). This is not correct. A man with one tattoo is also a tattooed man. And even assuming you were right in asserting otherwise, these keywords have not been used the way you are suggesting. And it is impossible at this point to "audit" or retroactively change how these keywords have been used, given the massive numbers.  As you know, I don't always advocate for majority rule on keywords, but in this case it really does make the most sense, again because there is no easy way to retroactively change how the keywords have been used. This relate to the absurdity of changing man-with-a-beard to bearded-man.  By putting an "-ed" adjective in front of the noun, there is the implication that someone has been "granted with" or "endowed-with" or inately has" a beard, for some reason.  man-with-a-beard implies that the beard was a man's choice, and is a much better keyword. You also still seem to believe that the phrase "tattooed man" implies that the man was born with a tattoo. I respectfully disagree. As I have said before, nothing about the phrase "tattooed man" implies that the man has always had the tattoo. Same with "bearded man."   (And for what it's worth, the numbers are clearly in favor of "bearded-man" over "man-with-a-beard" as well.)  Changing man-with-a-mustache to mustached-man is just as absurd.  What next?  mutton-chopped-man? (That lamb meat must be hungry, since it is "chopping" at a man!). sideburned-man? (That's what he gets for lying in the sun for too long on his left or right side!) ponytailed-girl?  goateed-man? etc. As with "tattooed-man," the community strongly preferred "mustached-man" over "man-with-a-mustache," which is why "mustached-man" won out. In this area, each keyword is unique, and there does not necessarily need to be the same approach for all these types of keywords.  One important factor can be how common a phrase is.  "Mustached man" is a commonly used phrase in the English language. That phrase yields 3 million hits on Google.  Compare that to "goateed man," which yields only 60,000 hits.  I thought that such silliness had been resolved when there was agreement that bespectacled-man was a terrible keyword and that one should use man-wears-eyeglasses instead. Nope. Although there was agreement (between you and me, not necessarily by the entire community) that "bespectacled-man" is a bad keyword, in the very same response I made it clear that I disagreed with you about "tattooed-man" and "bearded-man."  Not only is "bespectacled" not a very commonly used word, there is also a big difference between eyeglasses and a tattoo: eyeglasses are worn on one's body. That is why "man-wears-eyeglasses" is the best (and the community-preferred) keyword to describe that. Using adjective that end in "ed" should be avoided, although, there may be some exceptions. The "tattoo" keywords do need to be merged, and as for which direction to merge them, based on the numbers, the community has a clear preference for one set of keywords over the other. The alternative would be merging in favor of "man-with-a-tattoo," but that merger would mean that characters whose bodies are covered in tattoos would no longer be described as "tattooed-man" and "tattooed-woman" but rather as "man-with-a-tattoo" and "woman-with-a-tattoo." I doubt you would advocate for that result.  The bottom line is that because of the way these keywords have been used by the community, they should be merged in favor of "tattooed-man" and "tattooed-woman." If the distinctions you now advocate for had been adopted by the community years ago and adhered to, then we wouldn't be having this discussion now. Unfortunately, we can't "time-travel" and change how the community has used these keywords.