Aliasing mist → fog
Link to alias

Reason:

Pretty much the same thing. Often indistinguishable.

-1, mist can be caused by objects like dry ice, while fogs are caused by weather. This can be distinguished in the wiki: mist is used when there is something generating it; fog] is used when there is no no obvious generator or for the weather phenomenon.

And we should distinguish between the widespread weather event and the smallspread manual generation.

I think distinguishing them wouldn't be very useful. I can't really imagine a case where I would want to find one but not the other. Also, it's confusing, since mist doesn't necessarily imply it's artificial.

In fact, after taking a quick look on Wikipedia, it seems that the only thing that's physically different is that fog is more dense than mist. I would expect people searching for fog or mist to expect them to be synonyms, actually. So I believe it'd probably cause more confusion not to alias them.

Kemono-Kay said:
I think distinguishing them wouldn't be very useful. I can't really imagine a case where I would want to find one but not the other. Also, it's confusing, since mist doesn't necessarily imply it's artificial.

In fact, after taking a quick look on Wikipedia, it seems that the only thing that's physically different is that fog is more dense than mist. I would expect people searching for fog or mist to expect them to be synonyms, actually. So I believe it'd probably cause more confusion not to alias them.

Except this would cause things that aren't fog to be tagged as fog. Or do you consider a freezer room or deli isle to generate fog instead of mist? And we've use improvised names in leu of accuracy, just gore and infantilism 's aliases.

Well, if mist can be artificial but fog can't, and they are otherwise the same, the alias should simply be flipped and there will be no problem. fog A→ mist

Kemono-Kay said:
Well, if mist can be artificial but fog can't, and they are otherwise the same, the alias should simply be flipped and there will be no problem. fog A→ mist

They are not exactly the same, and it can be simplified to distinguishing between when it is distinguishable (when mist is man-made, excluding fog machines / smoke machines, both of these are very hard to distinguish without seeing what's making them), and when it is not. You can imply mist to fog, though, with impunity as the similarities are not deniable.

So my suggestion is:

Implicating mist -> fog.

I did acknowledge that they're not exactly the same, but I don't think a technical difference like that should get in the way of being unambiguous. I believe these tags should be aliased. If you see the need for distinguishing artificial mist from real mist, I would suggest creating a different tag for that, like artificial_fog or artificial_mist. This would not confuse people just looking for foggy or misty images without worrying about whether it's artificial.

Kemono-Kay said:
I did acknowledge that they're not exactly the same, but I don't think a technical difference like that should get in the way of being unambiguous. I believe these tags should be aliased. If you see the need for distinguishing artificial mist from real mist, I would suggest creating a different tag for that, like artificial_fog or artificial_mist. This would not confuse people just looking for foggy or misty images without worrying about whether it's artificial.

Except a natural mist can be created from human interventions, like a deli. Produce sections don't generate mist, they spray water that becomes mist do to cold air.

It, frankly, astonishes me that you misconstrued object-made with artificial. Are you sure you know the difference between fogs and mists?

Usefulness is more important than technical accuracy. +1 for alias.

i believe the convenience outweighs the accuracy for this alias.

il go on by saying that origin or how it was produced is irrelevant for tagging on this site. what it is is all that matters and both in general are the same kind of gaseous dispersal that has a high enough density to become visible.

for the record i support a alias of mist -> fog sense the usage of the latter does seem to be more common knowledge then the former.

For reference look at magma and lava, they are another duo that only difer on a technicality, one being applied to molten rock underground and the other to molten rock on the surface and as such have been aliased for convenience sake.

+1. They may not be the same, but are enough similar for an alias.

Ruku said:
For reference look at magma and lava, they are another duo that only difer on a technicality, one being applied to molten rock underground and the other to molten rock on the surface and as such have been aliased for convenience sake.

That is a good example, and there are other ones, like 'anthropomorphic' and 'humanoid' ('anthro' and 'human' mean human, also 'morpho' and 'oid' mean shape/aspect, in such a way those terms would be synonyms).

Siral_Exan said:
Except a natural mist can be created from human interventions, like a deli. Produce sections don't generate mist, they spray water that becomes mist do to cold air.

It, frankly, astonishes me that you misconstrued object-made with artificial. Are you sure you know the difference between fogs and mists?

I've said before that mist and fog are only different in that fog is more dense. That is the difference. That's it. The only reason I'm humouring you is that you're making a case from them being used differently, which I'm trying to provide a solution for that still allows an alias here. I've already made my case on why that should be done.

As for the difference between artificial, man-made and object-made, I don't see how that detracts at all from what I've said, but it only makes things more difficult for a tag indicating such a type of mist to exist. When is something man-made, when is it artificial, and when is it object-made?

And here we get back to my original argument of clarity. "artificial" is a clear and unambiguous way of phrasing it, even if on the most technical level, there are differences with either of the other terms. I'd also argue that tags like man_made_mist or object_made_mist are overly long and prone to being misunderstood.

I'll leave you with this: your usage of mist itself leaves much to be desired. It's based entirely on what the tag wiki says rather than what the actual word means. Therefore I don't think you're in a position to argue the technicalities of the tag I proposed for it.

And that's all I have to say on the matter. I'm still fully in support of the alias, whether it's fog → mist or mist → fog. If you want to be able to search for manually generated mist I think you'll need to make a case for that that's not based on the technical differences between the two wiki entries. I see no further need to argue with you over this.

Just alias them. As has been said, fog is simply thick mist. Wouldn't be worthwhile to try to figure out when it's thick enough to be tagged as fog, and when it's just mist.

I don't know if there even are posts of artificial fog, don't see any at the first glance. But if those exist, they can be tagged as fog_machine, artificial_fog, or whatever.

Though I should probably mention that there's some overlap with steam. I hope that doesn't spark an another argument about semantics. (...steam is invisible, and what's usually called steam is actually water mist.)