Implicating river → water
Link to implication

Reason:

River_of_blood.

parasprite said:
River_of_blood.

This one I thought it through but currently bath is implicated to water and there could also be a blood_bath. Perhaps we should unimplicate that one instead.

blackest_vulture said:
This one I thought it through but currently bath is implicated to water and there could also be a blood_bath. Perhaps we should unimplicate that one instead.

Nah, too complicated. This is probably good.

Blood is 90% water anyways. :p

I checked, and I didn't see any fire and brimstone lakes, or any extraterrestrial/heavenly lakes...

I was honestly pretty surprised...

blackest_vulture said:
This one I thought it through but currently bath is implicated to water and there could also be a blood_bath. Perhaps we should unimplicate that one instead.

Yeah, probably. Especially since bathhouse is implicated to bath. So bathhouse = water...

And just because there's a bath in the post, doesn't mean that it's filled; or that the water is visible; or that it's water.

post #526031 post #330794 post #534586 post #541761

(That tag will need some cleanup once the implication is fixed.)

blackest_vulture said:
This one I thought it through but currently bath is implicated to water and there could also be a blood_bath. Perhaps we should unimplicate that one instead.

Genjar said:
Yeah, probably. Especially since bathhouse is implicated to bath. So bathhouse = water...

And just because there's a bath in the post, doesn't mean that it's filled; or that the water is visible; or that it's water.

post #526031 post #330794 post #534586 post #541761

(That tag will need some cleanup once the implication is fixed.)

That old implication of bath to water has always seemed wrong for all of the reasons already listed above. And looking at the original thread here it doesn't look like it should have ever been passed in the first place. So the implication of bath to --> water is now deleted.

As for whether river, stream, lake should implicate water is debatable. Technically these words refer to the pattern of a large portion of fluid's behavior and not the type of fluid being used. But it almost seems like they could indicate the type, since in real life water is 98% of the time the only fluid that does that, and only rarely can anything else. Most of the images here are of water in a creek or river so it would work for the majority of images beautifully. ...As long as you don't look at all of the untagged images with lakes, rivers, streams and waterfalls under the lava tag. Like this untagged river of lava or this one or this one or this.

Very much related, is the existing implication of waterfall to --> water which was passed at some point in the past, even though the discussion had decided against it and even though we have images like:

post #521130 post #274244 post #193815 post #465820 post #489997 post #325526 post #410899 post #394040 post #366448

Thumbs # 2 and # 3 are both tagged with waterfall and therefore water even though none is present. The rest could have been tagged with waterfall, but currently can't without also tagging them with water because of this implication. So on the basis of that, I'm going to Deny these implications to --> water, and also delete the existing implication of waterfall to --> water. They're undertagged, but we do have a lot of images with these things that don't also feature water.