Topic: [APPROVED] Tag alias: under_sheets -> under_covers

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

Other way round feels better semantically but worse out loud. Im unsure on this one but do agree the alias should happen just... not that way.

demesejha said:
Other way round feels better semantically but worse out loud. Im unsure on this one but do agree the alias should happen just... not that way.

under covers already has an alias and implication tied to it, and personally it sounds better to me.

clawstripe said:
Sometimes, those covers might be blankets or afghans instead of sheets.

In most posts it'll be impossible to reasonably distinguish between all the potential subcategories, especially for the average layperson.

also why are you covering yourself with people from afghanistan

strikerman said:
also why are you covering yourself with people from afghanistan

Strange. I would have thought people would think of the dogs first, although I obviously speak of the yarny blankets.

strikerman said:
under covers already has an alias and implication tied to it, and personally it sounds better to me.

I actually don't know if I agree with the bed implication.

It's possible to be covered with a sheet or a blanket without being in bed, like lying on a couch, on a sleeping mat, or on the floor.
post #2214484

Plus, in some posts, it's actually not possible to tell if there's a bed there at all.
post #2722686 post #2120350

bitwolfy said:
It's possible to be covered with a sheet or a blanket without being in bed, like lying on a couch, on a sleeping mat, or on the floor.

I agree, I remember running into this issue way back when I was uploading this comic:
post #1786338

bitwolfy said:
I actually don't know if I agree with the bed implication.

It's possible to be covered with a sheet or a blanket without being in bed, like lying on a couch, on a sleeping mat, or on the floor.
post #2214484

Plus, in some posts, it's actually not possible to tell if there's a bed there at all.
post #2722686 post #2120350

Fair point. I'd be on board for removing that implication, then

  • 1