Topic: Algae BUR

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

gattonero2001

Janitor

The bulk update request #2913 is pending approval.

create alias alga (0) -> algae (116)
create alias brown_alga (0) -> brown_algae (0)
create alias phaeophyta (0) -> brown_algae (0)
create alias green_alga (0) -> green_algae (1)
create alias chlorophyta (0) -> green_algae (1)
create alias red_alga (0) -> red_algae (0)
create alias rhodophyta (0) -> red_algae (0)
create implication brown_algae (0) -> algae (116)
create implication green_algae (1) -> algae (116)
create implication red_algae (0) -> algae (116)
create implication seaweed (840) -> algae (116)
create implication kelp (210) -> brown_algae (0)
create implication kelp (210) -> seaweed (840)
create implication giant_kelp (1) -> kelp (210)
create implication kombu (0) -> kelp (210)
create implication wakame (1) -> kelp (210)
create alias cladophora_ball (0) -> marimo (3)
create alias moss_ball (0) -> marimo (3)
create implication acetabularia (1) -> green_algae (1)
create implication cladophora (0) -> green_algae (1)
create implication halimeda (1) -> green_algae (1)
create implication marimo (3) -> cladophora (0)
create implication nori (16) -> red_algae (0)
create implication nori (16) -> seaweed (840)
create implication sea_grass (54) -> plant (324601)

Reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae

Taxonomy of algae

faucet

Member

Is this... really necessary? Half of these are completely unused or minimally used, having a taxonomic classification system for animals on a website that's primarily devoted to animals is one thing but I don't really imagine many people are specifically wanting to filter out what types of algae appear in their searches.

On top of that nori is too ambiguous for an implication - there's already a bunch of character tags named Nori which far outnumbers the 1 result for nori as a type of seaweed.

gattonero2001

Janitor

faucet said:
Is this... really necessary? Half of these are completely unused or minimally used, having a taxonomic classification system for animals on a website that's primarily devoted to animals is one thing but I don't really imagine many people are specifically wanting to filter out what types of algae appear in their searches.

It is certainly not necessary, but it would not really be causing any harm, would it? I feel like sometimes we can get a bit too hung up on whether something is necessary or not, as if necessity is the only justification for a change.

I just think it would be nice to be able to categorize very detailed cute little aquarium things like in post #3469718 better. Nobody cares about algae when they're in the background of a shark orgy, but when every little element is visually distinct and at the focus of attention, that is a different situation.

faucet said:
On top of that nori is too ambiguous for an implication - there's already a bunch of character tags named Nori which far outnumbers the 1 result for nori as a type of seaweed.

They were all named after the algae, weren't they? I don't think snow is ambiguous either. The seaweed is admittedly very undertagged, but many posts with Japanese food should depict it.

  • 1