Implicating glowing_hair → glowing
Link to implication

Reason:

Glowing hair glows.

Related:

• glowing_hair I->hair

+1 don't see why not.

I think it should imply "bioluminescence" instead.
Actually, all tags which "glowing" is implicated should imply "bioluminescence" instead (except for "glowing_cum" and "bioluminescence" itself).

O16 said:
I think it should implicate "bioluminescence" instead.
Actually, all tags which currently implicate "glowing" should implicate "bioluminescence" instead (except for "glowing_cum" and "bioluminescence" itself).

to be clear, under the terms as to how posts are tagged on e621 both glowing and bioluminescence are the same thing, the latter is a specific of the the former in that the glowing comes into being from biologically produced chemicals that react to each other as a mixture or the air. why i say they are the same because its not really that visible as to how one would glow in drawn/painted art>flourescent paint is one exsample.

probly best to just alias bioluminescence to glowing.

Ruku said:
to be clear, under the terms as to how posts are tagged on e621 both glowing and bioluminescence are the same thing, the latter is a specific of the the former in that the glowing comes into being from biologically produced chemicals that react to each other as a mixture or the air. why i say they are the same because its not really that visible as to how one would glow in drawn/painted art>flourescent paint is one exsample.

probly best to just alias bioluminescence to glowing.

I think my argument in the past was that bioluminescence should be for realistic bodily glows, while glowing is for unnatural colors & non-organic things.

Furrin_Gok said:
I think my argument in the past was that bioluminescence should be for realistic bodily glows, while glowing is for unnatural colors & non-organic things.

well you probably need to edit the wikis then because they both do basicly state the same thing rather then making destictions of any kind.

Also what is your definition of realistic bodily glows.

And is the destingtion between realistic glowing and unnatural glowing even worthwhile from a tagging standpoint.

Ruku said:
probly best to just alias bioluminescence to glowing.

What about glowing things that aren't part of a creature's body. A glowing rock is not bioluminescense.

BlueDingo said:
What about glowing things that aren't part of a creature's body. A glowing rock is not bioluminescense.

bioluminecence -> glowing

not glowing -> bioluminecense

please be clear about the alias order before responding.

PS: minerals are likly to be phosphorescent or luminescent but we do not have tags for those.

All 3 are glowing and each indicate a different way how the glow is created.

If I understood well:

I) "bioluminescence" is used for any glowing body parts or body fluids.

II) "glowing" is used for anything that releases light, excluding things that are expected to do so (lava, lightning, aurora borealis, fire, lamp, star etc).

Note: a functional lamp is expected to release light (when on), but an aleatory bettle isn't, so "glowing" could be used for fireflies.

O16 said:
I think it should implicate "bioluminescence" instead.
Actually, all tags which currently implicate "glowing" should implicate "bioluminescence" instead (except for "glowing_cum" and "bioluminescence" itself).

What if it's not a living thing that's glowing, like a weapon?

kamimatsu said:
What if it's not a living thing that's glowing, like a weapon?

I imagine he meant it the other way around. Bioluminescence is the glow of living things.

kamimatsu said:
What if it's not a living thing that's glowing, like a weapon?

Furrin_Gok said:
I imagine he meant it the other way around. Bioluminescence is the glow of living things.

*facepalm*

Sorry for this... Edited. It is better now?