Implicating waterfall → water
Link to implication

Reason:

Waterfalls gotta have water

What if it's a waterfall of something other than water

I know it's right there in the name but hear me out

You could call it "[X]fall" but my experience with English vernacular witnesses phrases like "a waterfall of [X]."

Fenrick said:
What if it's a waterfall of something other than water

I know it's right there in the name but hear me out

You could call it "[X]fall" but my experience with English vernacular witnesses phrases like "a waterfall of [X]."

I was thinking that too, but of the posts in waterfall -water, only three or five of them (depending on how you see the rainbow waterfalls on the MLP posts) are tagged like that. The rest are just regular waterfalls.

Hmm. Lavafall is a word so.. I think the implication here is correct. The posts that have lava should have waterfall tag removed.

there has been at least two threads this has been denied because we cant just make different tag for every single waterfall that is made out of something else than water.

There are no posts with waterfalls other than those made of (colored) water and lava. So I dunno what you're talking about.

All dictionaries state that waterfall is made of water, so logically the word cannot be used for cascades of liquid other than water.

So yeah, it's not like you're making a hundred different tags. You're only making 1 new tag, and it's called lavafall. And lavafall can imply lava :P

Delian said:
There are no posts with waterfalls other than those made of (colored) water and lava. So I dunno what you're talking about.

All dictionaries state that waterfall is made of water, so logically the word cannot be used for cascades of liquid other than water.

So yeah, it's not like you're making a hundred different tags. You're only making 1 new tag, and it's called lavafall. And lavafall can imply lava :P

You do realize that the word is applicable to other circumstances, right? It can be used to imply another similar, but different, (semi) liquid falling from a height to the ground below. Or, do you think it'll be easier to call everything by substance, especially with fluids that look like or mimic water, with the only difference being scientific?

If I had noticed this earlier, I'd give it a -1 because waterfall is not just a literal term. In literature, it describes pretty much any instance of fluids (sometimes not just, just needing a fluid) dropping from a distance (even with clouds or fantastic imagery) onto solid ground below, sometimes causing a froth of the substance apon impact. The effect of calling it a waterfall is better than trying to divulge into overt details to be correct.

*edit* oh wow I fail at formatting and observation.

I'm the original

Frozen waterfalls. Not tagged as water, but they count as waterfalls. We've been over this, at least four times.

Mutisija said:

Siral_Exan said:

TheHuskyK9 said:

Genjar said:

:x
My bad, forgot to check for previous threads. Sorry for the clutter

RITUAL OF BLOOD RITUAL OF BLOOD

Siral_Exan said:
You do realize that the word is applicable to other circumstances, right?

Find me a dictionary that supports your claims.

Waterfall isn't like sea. The word sea contains a dictionary definition as "a widely extended, copious, or overwhelming quantity". But waterfall does not.

TheHuskyK9 said:
I'm the original

There are no posts with a waterfall made of blood
There are no posts with a waterfall made of tea
There are no posts with a waterfall made of coffee
And even if there were, based on TWYS, I'd sooner assume those to be just colored water than blood or tea or whatever.

Genjar said:
Frozen waterfalls. Not tagged as water, but they count as waterfalls.

Last time I heard, ice was water. So if you could imply that frozen waterfall was a waterfall (which personally I don't think it is, since water isn't moving), then you could also imply that ice is water.

Any sort of argument made against this implication in the past was made with fallacious logic.

But this could go either way. I'm not against changing the definition of waterfall to be applicable to any liquid. I simply think it would be more beneficial in this case to push the implication through.

• There is 1200 posts with waterfall.
• This means that implicating waterfall to water would save you from having to tag 1200 water tags.
• There are 2 posts with lavafall, so you would have to use a new tag on those posts.
• 1200 vs 2..

Logically, there's nothing wrong with adding lavafall. And logically there's also nothing wrong with changing waterfall to be of any liquid. In this case, where both options are equally viable, I would choose the one which benefits the site more.

They can be called a waterfall poetically. It is the idea that waterfall can apply to things that are not water, without being wrong. It can also be used metaphorically for things that do not work physically as well.

The beautiful thing thing about words is the ways to use them is vast, limited only to to knowledge of how to use them. Some are inappropriate because they're too specific, some are great for dramatic phrases (bleed money from your wallet), you can even make up (if you know how to, can't emphasize that enough) words to explain certain phrases, so long as you know the prefix, root, & suffix rules. Calling something a waterfall can invoke an idea of natural beauty or an feeling of imminent demise, it depends on where you are in correlation to the waterfall.

Denied

I prefer waterfalls of whiskey.

The water tag is pretty worthless, anyway.
Could be anything from bottled water to underwater scenes. Who actually searches for that, instead of more specific tags..

Almost as bad as liquid. Which, by the way, is up to 400 posts now.

Genjar said:
The water tag is pretty worthless, anyway.
Could be anything from bottled water to underwater scenes. Who actually searches for that, instead of more specific tags..

Almost as bad as liquid. Which, by the way, is up to 400 posts now.

I guess that tags like water, plant, rock, fire, sand etc. are mostly used to describe environmental factors, which would be really interesting to people that are looking for artwork with these details; more notoriously to people not interested in mature content (we can't forget of e926).
About 'liquid', it seems truly worthless since it is absurdly vague and we have tags for the most notorious liquids as well as 'ambiguous_fluids'.

Genjar said:
The water tag is pretty worthless, anyway.
Could be anything from bottled water to underwater scenes. Who actually searches for that, instead of more specific tags..

"body of water" and "drinking water" (or some variation thereof) might be decent ways to split the tag.

Strikerman said:
"body of water" and "drinking water" (or some variation thereof) might be decent ways to split the tag.

Those wouldn't cover raining, showering, swimming pool, water elemental etc.

Also it is perfectly plausible and not so improbable for people to want seeing water without any kind of specificity or just want blacklisting it (many people feel uncomfortable with water, even representations of it). I highly doubt someone would want to search for/blacklist all water-related tag individually in order to just see/avoid seeing water in general.

Chocolate waterfall is an actual thing you can buy

O16 said:
I guess that tags like water, plant, rock, fire, sand etc. are mostly used to describe environmental factors, which would be really interesting to people that are looking for artwork with these details

But it's pretty useless when searching for details, because (for instance) trying to search for a glass of water (glass water) finds a lot of posts of characters sipping alcohol by the beach or swimming pool. ...or drinking soda while it rains outside.

And even posts such as this:
post #1179301

That's the problem with too generic tags.

Genjar said:
But it's pretty useless when searching for details, because (for instance) trying to search for a glass of water (glass water) finds a lot of posts of characters sipping alcohol by the beach or swimming pool. ...or drinking soda while it rains outside.

And even posts such as this:
post #1179301

That's the problem with too generic tags.

I would be lying if said it isn't a generic tag, however it seems important because (along with other reasons) it allows someone to search for water without specificity if he/she/it wants to, act which isn't implausible since water is a relatively common thing easily capable of being related to someone's likings.

Also the implication suggested of this thread wasn't accepted because (along with other arguments) "waterfalls" may show other things aside of water; following that logic, if I want to see "water waterfalls" I would be supposed to use 'waterfall + water' and such construction isn't possible without the 'water' tag.

Edit: also 'glass' is a quite ambiguous tag by itself, in such a way that searching for it and 'water' simultaneously almost certainly wouldn't work well.

I'm thinking about how much harder it would be to find images containing water if the water tag was removed. There'd be quite a list of tags to fuzzy search just to find one thing, and the 6-8 tag search limit certainly doesn't help.

O16 said:
Edit: also 'glass' is a quite ambiguous tag by itself, in such a way that searching for it and 'water' simultaneously almost certainly wouldn't work well.

We probably should start using drinking_glass. It won't fix the problem entirely but it will help differentiate the object from the substance.

Strikerman said:
"body of water" and "drinking water" (or some variation thereof) might be decent ways to split the tag.

Any water placed in a container, for drinking or otherwise, is technically a body of water.

While drinking_water doesn't necessarily sound bad, other things like alcohol have both drinking and non-drinking varieties as well yet don't have differentiating tags. If you differentiate one, chances are the others will be questioned.

Side note: Anyone else noticed that dihydrogen monoxide is one of the few substances where each of its forms have common names but the substance itself doesn't? It's only called water when it's liquid, ice when it's solid, etc.

BlueDingo said:

We probably should start using drinking_glass. It won't fix the problem entirely but it will help differentiate the object from the substance.

May work, but what about 'drinkware'_empty? I think it would be better since the name isn't related a specific material.

BlueDingo said:

Side note: Anyone else noticed that dihydrogen monoxide is one of the few substances where each of its forms have common names but the substance itself doesn't? It's only called water when it's liquid, ice when it's solid, etc.

Yes, that is somewhat curious. A similar thing happens to carbon dioxide ('dry ice' when solid and 'carbonic gas' when gaseous).

Also we have even more names for the other variations of H2O:

• heavy water (water with deuterium).

• the other 15 types of ice (ice II to ice XVI).

• snow (small ice crystals mixed with air).

• possibly others.

O16 said:
May work, but what about 'drinkware'_empty? I think it would be better since the name isn't related a specific material.

Drinkware encompasses all drinking cups (including non-glass ones) and some other containers (eg. beakers) so it would be too broad. Glassware would also be too broad as that includes glass plates and bowls amongst other things. We could go with glass_cup since that's basically what they are but no one ever calls them that.

BlueDingo said:
Drinkware encompasses all drinking cups (including non-glass ones) and some other containers (eg. beakers) so it would be too broad. Glassware would also be too broad as that includes glass plates and bowls amongst other things. We could go with glass_cup since that's basically what they are but no one ever calls them that.

The issue regarding 'drinking_glass' is that it gives the wrong impression of only including drinkwares made of glass, which isn't true; also adopting that as a truth, wouldn't be practical to the tagging view point, since it would exclude other materials.

Additionally, the term 'drinkware' doesn't refers to any containers not used to, well, drink.

kamimatsu said:
Chocolate waterfall is an actual thing you can buy

Willy Wonka pls

Penguinempire-Dennis said:
Willy Wonka pls

I wasn't kidding. They're these little things you put pieces of chocolate in and then it heats up and comes down as a liquid, then it gets shot up the thing and comes down again. You can find them at parties sometimes and you coat pretzels with them.

kamimatsu said:
I wasn't kidding. They're these little things you put pieces of chocolate in and then it heats up and comes down as a liquid, then it gets shot up the thing and comes down again. You can find them at parties sometimes and you coat pretzels with them.

actually its chocolate fountain, not chocolate waterfall :V

Ledian said:
actually its chocolate fountain, not chocolate waterfall :V

Oh. Nevermind.

Ledian said:
actually its chocolate fountain, not chocolate waterfall :V

You can get them as waterfalls too. Just make it shoot up into a box and flow out one side only.