Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions
The bulk update request #11879 is pending approval.
remove implication hot_chocolate (836) -> chocolate (6833)
Reason: Current line of implications means hot_chocolate will imply candy, dessert, and food. We should keep the chocolate tag to just candy versions, unless someone wants to make a full BUR so that chocolate can be used whenever it's an ingredient.
I mean there are so many things made of chocolate that is not candy, such as chocolate_cake or chocolate_fudge.
Wouldn't it make more sense to unimply candy from chocolate? We even have a separate chocolate_bar tag that could imply candy instead.
thegreatwolfgang said:
I mean there are so many things made of chocolate that is not candy, such as chocolate_cake or chocolate_fudge.
Wouldn't it make more sense to unimply candy from chocolate? We even have a separate chocolate_bar tag that could imply candy instead.
This would be better. Most chocolate is probably not candy.
its still chocolate. just in liquid form. just imo.
catchoftheday said:
its still chocolate. just in liquid form. just imo.
arguably? although it depends on your definition of chocolate, like, where is the line between "chocolate" any other cocoa product.
The bulk update request #12442 is pending approval.
remove implication chocolate (6833) -> candy (28367)
Reason: Alternative to the above.
dba_afish said:
arguably? although it depends on your definition of chocolate, like, where is the line between "chocolate" any other cocoa product.
None. Cacao products are made of chocolate; That's what is seen, that's what it should be tagged.
If the solidity/fluidity of something don't imply that thing, then you open up all sort of weird stuff, like he tag for dierrhea not implying shit
bleakdragoon said:
None. Cacao products are made of chocolate; That's what is seen, that's what it should be tagged.
first of all, what? for one, that's not even true, a huge amount of chocolate-flavoured things don't actually have chocolate as an ingredient, brownies usually don't, and as it's the topic of this discussion, hot chocolate/cocoa dosn't tend to either.
second of all, even if this was true, if we were to start tagging food products based on their ingredients, even their main (flavouring) ingredients, we're going to have major problems. should pumpkin_pie just imply pumpkin too, now? peanut_butter imply peanut? no, because that's obviously silly. someone who's searching for just pumpkin is likely to want posts where the actual fruit is recognizable as a pumpkin.
dba_afish said:
first of all, what? for one, that's not even true, a huge amount of chocolate-flavoured things don't actually have chocolate as an ingredient, brownies usually don't, and as it's the topic of this discussion, hot chocolate/cocoa dosn't tend to either.
Well, first of all, we are not talking about tagging real life substitute for cacao in drawing: we're talking about what we see. Who could tell if lorewise the drawn cake doesn't have cacao, but a substitute? That argument goes nowhere.
dba_afish said:
second of all, even if this was true, if we were to start tagging food products based on their ingredients, even their main (flavouring) ingredients, we're going to have major problems. should pumpkin_pie just imply pumpkin too, now? peanut_butter imply peanut? no, because that's obviously silly. someone who's searching for just pumpkin is likely to want posts where the actual fruit is recognizable as a pumpkin.
That's actually a fair point, but then tell me why have "chocolate" as a tag at all since it's an ingredient of a candy — the way the implications are at the moment at least.
Edit; Also what would anyone expect to see searching for chocolate? That argument works for peanut and pumpkin because they are not just a flavor: they are recognizable item by themselves; people searching for pumpkin are most likely searching for the gourd. But chocolate? — Is your point is that chocolate should be use only for chocolate bars? Is tagging chocolate_cake along chocolate an error?
On a side note; you're mistaking the vulgarity of the example I made as hostility: it is not. So you can calm down. I'm just volunteering help like everyone else here.
Updated
