Implicating savanna → grassland
Link to implication

Reason:

Savanna is a grassland characterized by its tropical semi-humid climate, and sparse trees.

Related implications:

• meadow → grassland.
• grassland → grass.¹

¹ One of the most easily recognisable characteristics of a grassland is its typical vegetation, grass (in the same way as 'forest' implies 'tree').

EDIT: The tag implication savanna -> grassland (forum #232155) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.

if this is accepted, one must also alias from "savannah."

fewrahuxo said:
if this is accepted, one must also alias from "savannah."

But 'savannah' already is aliased to 'savanna'.

This is an edge case, but what if there were an image that was clearly a savanna because of the type of trees shown, but for some reason or another does not depict the grass itself?

Here are a few images that are cause for concern.
post #1118422 post #1002953 post #710486 post #414384

In the first one, it's unclear if the distant terrain really is grass or not, and in the second case, the vegetation is too ambiguous to really tell as well. The last two images don't show any grass whatsoever.

Kemono-Kay said:
This is an edge case, but what if there were an image that was clearly a savanna because of the type of trees shown, but for some reason or another does not depict the grass itself?

Here are a few images that are cause for concern.
post #1118422 post #1002953 post #710486 post #414384

In the first one, it's unclear if the distant terrain really is grass or not, and in the second case, the vegetation is too ambiguous to really tell as well. The last two images don't show any grass whatsoever.

I) The type of tree doesn't define if it is a savanna or not. Savanna biomes may be found in Asia, South America and Oceania as well, and those locations have their own kinds of tree.

II) Grass at distance is still grass.

III) Gramines are a distinctive characteristic of a savanna, if there is no gramines so was happened a desertification process (hence it is a desert).

IV) The second one isn't a savanna, the composition of hues of green denotes a much denser vegetation.

V) The third one shows grass, you probably got confused due the dark colors and artstyle.

VI) The fourth one probably also shows grass (those black marks on the foreground seem to be grass), if there is no grass, then it is a desert.

Note: deserts may have sparse trees.

I) Sure, not all savannas will have those kinds of trees, but the umbrella thorn acacia is characteristic of the African savanna.

II) True enough, but what happens if the distance is too great to tell if it's grass or blurry bushes/trees?

III) True, but this doesn't necessarily imply that images without it are deserts. The view of the grass may be blocked, or the view may exclude the ground.

IV) Fair enough.

V) Fair enough. I don't see it, but that's not really the point either way.

VI) The marks are paw prints. The lines are ambiguously either ground or grass, but it's stylised too much to really tell. The trees seem to have a good amount of foliage, though, making it less likely that it's a desert.

The thing is, while a savanna is a kind of grassland, it's possible to identify it without any grass being unambiguously visible. That's what I had hoped to show by listing off those images.

i'm forced to agree that if there is a single exception to an alias, it must not be aliased. i find the cited edge cases are too convincing for me to agree with this alias.

fewrahuxo said:
i'm forced to agree that if there is a single exception to an alias, it must not be aliased. i find the cited edge cases are too convincing for me to agree with this alias.

Try saying that to bleeding, mug and dozens of other bad aliases.

BlueDingo said:
[...]

if one wishes to see a poor alias put out of commission, it would do one better to create threads requesting such.

fewrahuxo said:
if one wishes to see a poor alias put out of commission, it would do one better to create threads requesting such.

You mean like this?

BlueDingo said:
You mean like this?

the time spent here is best spent pimping your request.

Kemono-Kay said:
I) Sure, not all savannas will have those kinds of trees, but the umbrella thorn acacia is characteristic of the African savanna.

II) True enough, but what happens if the distance is too great to tell if it's grass or blurry bushes/trees?

III) True, but this doesn't necessarily imply that images without it are deserts. The view of the grass may be blocked, or the view may exclude the ground.

IV) Fair enough.

V) Fair enough. I don't see it, but that's not really the point either way.

VI) The marks are paw prints. The lines are ambiguously either ground or grass, but it's stylised too much to really tell. The trees seem to have a good amount of foliage, though, making it less likely that it's a desert.

I) There are acacia forests and acacia trees from deserts (see VI).

II) Then the tag shouldn't be used, grassy terrain (no pokémon reference intended) is one of the most prominent characteristics of a savanna, without grass can't be said it is a savanna.

III) If no grass can be seen then don't tag it with 'savanna' because may not be one, it may be a desert or even a garden (believe me, people plant the strangest things in gardens); we tag only what is shown in the image.

VI) Here an example of a desert tree (note it is an acacia).

Kemono-Kay said:
The thing is, while a savanna is a kind of grassland, it's possible to identify it without any grass being unambiguously visible. That's what I had hoped to show by listing off those images.

Sorry but actually not. A savanna without grass would be like a forest without trees, a glacier without ice or a salar without salt. You can't say it truly is a savanna if grass isn't visible.

I'm sorry to say that the desert acacia looks noticeably different from the one depicted in the fourth image. The foliage is wiry and thin near the edges. You don't get that on savanna acacia trees.

And I'm not saying the savanna is without grass. Spaced out trees means it's not a forest. It could be a desert as you say, but if the ground is not visible, it's impossible to conclusively say. Once that happens, a decision has to be made. Is it a savanna or is it a desert?

Let me bring genders into this for a second. What if a character with mostly ambiguous features, PLUS a set of breasts, is depicted from the waist up. Does that conclusively tell us anything about what's between their legs? No, it doesn't. But it's still gotta be tagged somehow, because it's clearly gendered, and certain genders are excluded by the way it's depicted as well.

So I look at it this way: If the image is set in an area with sparse umbrella thorn acacia trees then it's clearly either set in a desert or a savanna, and not any other kind of biome. If the trees are very dense, it's potentially a forest as well.

So would I like to see those kinds of images if I search for savanna? Absolutely. Just as I'd like pictures with only breasts visible to show up if I search for females. It could be a dickgirl or a herm, but it's been decided that the default option to go for is female. I think savanna would benefit from a similar treatment.

Kemono-Kay said:
I'm sorry to say that the desert acacia looks noticeably different from the one depicted in the fourth image. The foliage is wiry and thin near the edges. You don't get that on savanna acacia trees.

And I'm not saying the savanna is without grass. Spaced out trees means it's not a forest. It could be a desert as you say, but if the ground is not visible, it's impossible to conclusively say. Once that happens, a decision has to be made. Is it a savanna or is it a desert?

Let me bring genders into this for a second. What if a character with mostly ambiguous features, PLUS a set of breasts, is depicted from the waist up. Does that conclusively tell us anything about what's between their legs? No, it doesn't. But it's still gotta be tagged somehow, because it's clearly gendered, and certain genders are excluded by the way it's depicted as well.

So I look at it this way: If the image is set in an area with sparse umbrella thorn acacia trees then it's clearly either set in a desert or a savanna, and not any other kind of biome. If the trees are very dense, it's potentially a forest as well.

So would I like to see those kinds of images if I search for savanna? Absolutely. Just as I'd like pictures with only breasts visible to show up if I search for females. It could be a dickgirl or a herm, but it's been decided that the default option to go for is female. I think savanna would benefit from a similar treatment.

I think people don't care enough about biomes for that to be a "required" tag like gender is (which isn't even required itself)

Well, that's fair. I don't think I have anything else left to argue either, so I'll leave it up to others to decide which argument they find more convincing.

Furrin_Gok said:
I think people don't care enough about biomes for that to be a "required" tag like gender is (which isn't even required itself)

Yes, it'd be a lot to ask considering that many such posts are even missing the basic outside tag (not to mention nature, where applicable). (Just added outside to most savanna posts, but it's still missing from other biome tags.)

Genjar said:
Yes, it'd be a lot to ask considering that many such posts are even missing the basic outside tag (not to mention nature, where applicable). (Just added outside to most savanna posts, but it's still missing from other biome tags.)

Looking at that, it says no roads or fences should be visible. So, would the opposite case, where they are visible, be garden instead? There's no wiki for that one and nature doesn't say.

The tag implication savanna -> grassland (forum #232155) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.