Implicating river → water
Link to implication

Reason:

It is a water body.

Related implications:

• lake → water.
• waterfall → water.
• raining → water.
• showering → water.
• bathing → water.

EDIT: The tag implication river -> water (forum #216010) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.

What if it's a river of lava? Or blood?

this has been went trough with waterfalls like fifty times but applies to all suggestions here: its not always water, it can be lava, blood, lemonade, cum, piss or virtually anything liquid

For Mutisija, some references:

https://e621.net/forum/show/209322
https://e621.net/forum/show/198084
https://e621.net/forum/show/150870
https://e621.net/forum/show/129388
https://e621.net/forum/show/64517

Beer, honey, molasses, olive oil, tar... You can even have a waterfall of pitch if you wanted to. Sure, it will take you a few thousand years to make, will be as hard as stone and flow at a pace that will make glaciers look speedy, but still.

O16 said:
Implicating river → water
Link to implication

Reason:

It is a water body.

Related implications:

lake → water
waterfall → water
Reason: same

raining → water
Reason: rain is water precipitaion.

showering → water
bathing → water
Reason: actions that involve water.

waterfall specifies a specific fluid, water(h2o)

But the others specify a body or action of fluid(or gas/objects) in general, not the type.

Also before anyone links me to a dozen threads on waterfalls, might i make aware to you that you proubly had to answer to this a dozen times because your opinion and decision to deny that implication is probly wrong considering how many people keep bringing it up and will keep bringing it up because the common person only knows waterfall as a body of falling water, the wiki states such and as those others have pointed out it is listed as such in most dictionarys around the world, please dont complicate things with your subjective personal abstract pholosepy and what ifs reasoning...

And just for reference Lavafall is a real word that is in common usage

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lavafall

and oh look on that same page is also the word that would remove the whole issue of material confussion.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cascade

the results thru a simple google image search with these word kinda speaks for it self.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lavafall
1. A cascade of lava.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cascade
1. A waterfall or series of small waterfalls.

In other words, a cascade is a type of waterfall, and a lavafall is a waterfall of lava. Oops.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/waterfall
2. (figuratively) A waterfall-like outpouring of liquid, smoke, etc.

So waterfall can be used for other substances.

Also, the reason why waterfall and lavafall are terms but bloodfall, cumfall, pissfall, etc. are not is because the former naturally occur often enough to warrant naming them (one occurring way more often than the other) and the latter don't happen at all. If there was a place where blood consistently flowed down a river and off a cliff, there would be a term for it. In most cases, you can't even manufacture the others without the assistance of a few hundred thousand people brought together for that specific purpose. This is also why lake, river, rain, ocean, etc. specifically mention water instead of liquid. One can only imagine how many people would need to be cumming at once to create a river.

Ruku said:
waterfall specifies a specific fluid, water(h2o)

It is a common figure of speech, however, to refer to something as "a waterfall of [some flowing agent]." It's not technically right, but would tagging lava_fall etc. really be practical?

Fenrick said:
It is a common figure of speech, however, to refer to something as "a waterfall of [some flowing agent]." It's not technically right, but would tagging lava_fall etc. really be practical?

liquid_fall

Munkelzahn said:
liquid_fall

What about sand?

Do a test, search for "-water ~river ~waterfall ~lake", do you saw how many posts have water and how many don't? Is that what I wanted to state.
In terms of practicality make more sense do these implications and add new tags for uncommon "water bodies" (uncommon_cascade, uncommon_lake, uncommon_river ect).

O16 said:
Do a test, search for "-water ~river ~waterfall ~lake", do you saw how many posts have water and how many don't? Is that what I wanted to state.
In terms of practicality make more sense do these implications and add new tags for uncommon "water bodies" (uncommon_cascade, uncommon_lake, uncommon_river ect).

They reason is strong enough that this was denied several times in the past already though.

BlueDingo said:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lavafall
1. A cascade of lava.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cascade
1. A waterfall or series of small waterfalls.

In other words, a cascade is a type of waterfall, and a lavafall is a waterfall of lava. Oops.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/waterfall
2. (figuratively) A waterfall-like outpouring of liquid, smoke, etc.

So waterfall can be used for other substances.

Also, the reason why waterfall and lavafall are terms but bloodfall, cumfall, pissfall, etc. are not is because the former naturally occur often enough to warrant naming them (one occurring way more often than the other) and the latter don't happen at all. If there was a place where blood consistently flowed down a river and off a cliff, there would be a term for it. In most cases, you can't even manufacture the others without the assistance of a few hundred thousand people brought together for that specific purpose. This is also why lake, river, rain, ocean, etc. specifically mention water instead of liquid. One can only imagine how many people would need to be cumming at once to create a river.

mind you cascade is not a type of waterfall, it is any form of fluid or other material falling as a wall(like a waterfall but not a waterfall).
And again do not unnecessarily complicate things, by the very principle of how twys works we tag by whats literally visible in the picture, not whats figurative. what is seen, not, what it looks like.

And to answer your question fenrick i do believe seperate tags certainly would be worthwhile. such images do show up often enough but are under tagged for specific reason that waterfall is and should not be used for any kind of fluid or material other then water.

as far as i see it, this is a arguement of 10 people or so that see a hundred different things in a tag that hundreds of other members on this site have repeatably shown to only see as just one thing only.

Furrin_Gok said:
They reason is strong enough that this was denied several times in the past already though.

Maybe the process itself wasn't happend properly. I will try to explain what I mean.

I readed some previous discutions about this topic, and the arguments of each side say basicaly the same thing:

• In favor: waterfall, river, lake etc, are water bodies, they would imply "water".

• Against: is perfectly possible exist waterfalls, rivers, lakes etc, composed of lava, blood, urine etc.

Both sides have some reason: there is a lot of posts featuring water bodies but without the "water" tag, however the posts which don't actualy show water can't be unvalued.
I guess I have a possible solution. I will try to explain it using "lake" as example:

Step 1) Edit the lake wiki to says something like: "lake" should only be used if the post actually shows liquid water, in case of a frozen lake use "hypothetical_tag_a", in case of a dry lake use "hypothetical_tag_b" and in case of a lake of any fluid or fluid-like compost except water use "hypothetical_tag_c".

Step 2) find out the posts tagged with "lake", but not showing water and tag them with "hypothetical_tag_a", "hypothetical_tag_b", or "hypothetical_tag_c".

Now the implication lake → water can be made.
If someone find a post featuring a common lake, he/she can use "lake" and "water" will be automaticaly added; if someone find a post featuring a frozen lake, a dry lake or a lake of lava, blood etc he/she can use "hypothetical_tag_a", "hypothetical_tag_b" or "hypothetical_tag_c" (respectively) and "water" will not be added

Do you agree with my proposition?

You are excluding both the possibility of mistags and the users actually knowing to use tags "hypothetical_tag_*" and etc., instead of tagging what they know is just "a lake" (along with what is inside of it, presumably).

Siral_Exan said:
You are excluding both the possibility of mistags and the users actually knowing to use tags "hypothetical_tag_*" and etc., instead of tagging what they know is just "a lake" (along with what is inside of it, presumably).

I am not. Mistags ever are a possibility.
Sometimes people read the wikis before start tagging, sometimes people simply tag what they belive be right, and even who reads the wikis may do mistags. Sooner or later mistags are made.
Besides, when someone finds something strange or uncommon, presumably he/she do a rapid search (but we know this don't happen everytime).

I would rather have one tag for each type of body of liquid.

The tag implication river -> water (forum #216010) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.