Topic: Tag Implication: rose_(flower) -> flower

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

Implicating rose_(flower) → flower
Link to implication

Reason:

It is a flower.

Related implications:
Related_aliases:

¹ it is a relatively popular first name and last name .

² it is the "standard color" for roses.

Note 1: currently 'rose_(flower)' implies 'plant' and 'rose' implies 'flower'.

Note 2: This was suggested before as a related suggestion at forum #191890, but since it was floating on our personal limbo thenceforth, I guessed a direct suggestion would be a good idea.

Updated

On one hand, +1.
On the other hand, that's gonna be quite a cleanup.

Thenceforth... There's a word I haven't seen in a while.[/spoiler][/sub]

Updated by anonymous

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:

implications:

Already suggested, respectively at:

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:

implications:

Already implemented.

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:

implications:

+1.

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:

implications:

-1. Explanation below:

I) 'flower_petals' should be aliased to 'petals' (see forum #225596).

II) 'petals' ought only be used to detached petals and not for those that are still part of the flower.

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:

Aliases:

-1. Explanation below:

I) A tag shouldn't be simultaneously implicated and aliased.

II) It is an exception, because it isn't a flower called 'lotus', its name is 'lotus flower'.

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:

Aliases:

Not sure. 'flower_on_head' has a tendency of being used to situations in which there is no hair, and we already have a request for implying 'flower_in_hair' to 'hair' (forum #192741).

Updated by anonymous

  • 1