Updated by husdiSA(*D&SADS&A*Dd
Topic: Tag Implication: lava_cum -> glowing_cum
Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions
I'm not sure that is what is meant by glowing. Glowing usually means bioluminescence
Updated by anonymous
Rainbow_Dash said:
I'm not sure that is what is meant by glowing. Glowing usually means bioluminescence
I don't think we should treat it as such. If it glows, it should be glowing_cum. If it's bioluminescent, and we want to note that, we should tag it as such.
Updated by anonymous
123easy said:
I don't think we should treat it as such. If it glows, it should be glowing_cum. If it's bioluminescent, and we want to note that, we should tag it as such.
Yes but lava doesn't always glow on here
Updated by anonymous
Looking at the pictures tagged lava_cum, the cum appears to be glowing or giving off light of its own in every case, yet only one or two of the pictures actually have the tag glowing_cum as well.
Updated by anonymous
its not always glowing
https://e621.net/post/show/374957
https://e621.net/post/show/410899
Updated by anonymous
Mutisija said:
its not always glowing
https://e621.net/post/show/374957
https://e621.net/post/show/410899
I would argue that those images the cum is glowing. The area is darker in the surrounding area than where the cum is (which is tinted towards red as well), and in the latter it's the same light source as the lava around it, which is luminescent itself.
Updated by anonymous
I'm talking that lava on here can be drawn without glowing, which would make the implication not suitable
Updated by anonymous
Rainbow_Dash said:
I'm talking that lava on here can be drawn without glowing, which would make the implication not suitable
While the idea of lava that is darkened rather than glows (as by the very property of being so hot it's molten it sheds energy in the form of light, thus any 'lava' that doesn't shed light is in fact not lava at all, either being sufficiently cooled and thus rendered into the various forms of igneous rock, or simply being another substance that is being incorrectly claimed as lava) is intriguing, the topic at hand is not lava in general, but lava cum, specifically. https://e621.net/post?tags=lava_cum look at the images contained herein. The cum is lava, and it glows. The implication is sound.
Updated by anonymous
123easy said:
While the idea of lava that is darkened rather than glows (as by the very property of being so hot it's molten it sheds energy in the form of light, thus any 'lava' that doesn't shed light is in fact not lava at all, either being sufficiently cooled and thus rendered into the various forms of igneous rock, or simply being another substance that is being incorrectly claimed as lava) is intriguing, the topic at hand is not lava in general, but lava cum, specifically. https://e621.net/post?tags=lava_cum look at the images contained herein. The cum is lava, and it glows. The implication is sound.
Science does not apply to fictionally drawn concepts, this he implication could be broken and is not good. The other thing is that something glowing is relative, in that the way it is drawn could indicate it is lava, by burning things, catching hings on fire, but not glow in any way or have any light coming off of it.
If this were real life, the implication would be good as lava glows, but this is not real life, and users are going to tag lava as lava, regardless of if it glows or not, and an artist will draw it as glowing or not depending on their choice
Updated by anonymous
Please show me lava that doesn't glow and I will concede your point.
Updated by anonymous
123easy said:
Please show me lava that doesn't glow and I will concede your point.
If it can be drawn, then it would break the implication, and it can be drawn. So far we have so few of them that it hasn't happened yet, but this is how these always start and down the road we have mistags and I end up having to delete the implication
Updated by anonymous
Rainbow_Dash said:
If it can be drawn, then it would break the implication, and it can be drawn. So far we have so few of them that it hasn't happened yet, but this is how these always start and down the road we have mistags and I end up having to delete the implication
Lava "not glowing" GISearch. The only cases where it's not glowing is when it's hardened and is no longer classified as lava, but one of the various forms of igneous rock, or when it isn't lava at all but plastic molded to simulate lava (as on a replica volcano). The latter shouldn't be tagged lava since, well, it isn't. Same with the former, which should be tagged igneous_rock (or just rock if we don't bother to differentiate between the types of rock). Even the lava in set pieces ( http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-E4Kal3bezAo/T1zz78XFELI/AAAAAAAADgc/ykrCMnHYEVY/s640/DSC_1172 ) is done in bright colours to replicate the lighting effect from the glow of actual lava, and also falls under the same catagory as the simulated plastic lava- it isn't lava, and therefore shouldn't be tagged as such; fake_lava, perhaps, but not actual lava.
Updated by anonymous
Rainbow_Dash said:
If it can be drawn, then it would break the implication, and it can be drawn.
I'm not entirely convinced that it can be drawn. If it doesn't glow, then it won't look much like lava and will probably get tagged as something else instead of lava_cum.
Updated by anonymous
Sure, lava is drawn in bright, warm colours but not all of them are glowing like glowing cum should.
These contain glowing cum:
post #166860 post #224626 post #201129
This one? Not so much.
Not what I'd be looking for if I wanted glowing cum. It isn't emitting any noticeable light, it's just orange.
Updated by anonymous
Saffron said:
Sure, lava is drawn in bright, warm colours but not all of them are glowing like glowing cum should.These contain glowing cum:
post #166860 post #224626 post #201129
This one? Not so much.
Not what I'd be looking for if I wanted glowing cum. It isn't emitting any noticeable light, it's just orange.
This is pretty much my entire argument here. It can be drawn without glowing like it's radioactive and that would make the implication not correct. This is fictional art here, not real life science
Updated by anonymous
That still looks glowy to me, just like the lava itself. *shrug*
Updated by anonymous
Saffron said:
Sure, lava is drawn in bright, warm colours but not all of them are glowing like glowing cum should.These contain glowing cum:
post #166860 post #224626 post #201129
This one? Not so much.
Not what I'd be looking for if I wanted glowing cum. It isn't emitting any noticeable light, it's just orange.
Still glowing. Firstly, he's surrounded by lava, during the day; ambient light is going to be naturally high, so the glow is not going to be as visible in the first place. Secondly, it's much brighter than his body is. Thirdly, lava isn't a neon light brightness glow; it's the glow of molten rock, which is a naturally very low intensity glow on a very long wavelength.
Updated by anonymous
I just had to pick an example that was just about to be taken down .-.
123easy said:
Thirdly, lava isn't a neon light brightness glow; it's the glow of molten rock, which is a naturally very low intensity glow on a very long wavelength.
The "neon light brightness glow" is exactly what the glowing_cum tag is for, and what I'm sure people would be looking for when searching for it. The cum in that image has no halo of light around it, or anything suggesting that it's glowing any more than just being an orange colour. If there wasn't already a large amount of lava in the image, I'm sure nobody would even think of the cum as lava and just plain orange cum.
Most lava cum does glow, but if there's a possibility that it can be drawn in a way that it doesn't, it will be a bad implication. Since the lava_cum and glowing_cum tags are both so small, it wouldn't be too hard to make sure the relevant images are tagged correctly.
Updated by anonymous