Aliasing breast_milk → milk
Link to alias

Reason:

The same.

Approved.

post #149292
Not that that is a counter-argument -- most other posts do fit with this equation. But IMO the tagging of milk on that is valid, Maybe it should be changed to milk_carton -- that only has 10 taggings, which seems implausibly small, but w/e

savageorange said:
post #149292
Not that that is a counter-argument -- most other posts do fit with this equation. But IMO the tagging of milk on that is valid, Maybe it should be changed to milk_carton -- that only has 10 taggings, which seems implausibly small, but w/e

The alias is breast_milk -> milk, not the other way around.

savageorange said:
post #149292
Not that that is a counter-argument -- most other posts do fit with this equation. But IMO the tagging of milk on that is valid, Maybe it should be changed to milk_carton -- that only has 10 taggings, which seems implausibly small, but w/e

There's also milk bottles, milk in a cup, etc. Technically speaking, it all comes from the same sorts of breasts.

parasprite said:
There's also milk bottles, milk in a cup, etc. Technically speaking, it all comes from the same sorts of breasts.

..
That's great if there is actually milk visible. The milk here is only implicitly present, in the carton (hence, well, milk isn't quite the right tag). Under TWYS, what we have is a carton. (milk bottles and cups usually don't have that problem, liquid is visible)

Furrin_Gok said:
The alias is breast_milk -> milk, not the other way around.

However, most of the now-taggings of milk are of milk visibly coming from breasts (as specified in breast_milk wiki article, and not specified in milk wiki article). That's why I thought the alias was good. This picture, though, only contains implicit milk; there is no evidence the carton is not empty.

I'm feeling a little incoherent at this point, but I hope I've conveyed the point, that people might reasonably tag milk on such a picture but it doesn't actually contain milk.