Implicating Crustacean -> Marine.

Reason: All crustaceans inhabit water. The e6 wiki states marine is an umbrella tag.

Nope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coconut_crab

Halite said:
Nope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coconut_crab

They spend the first several years of their life living in the ocean.

Also, how far are we going to split hairs on something like this? There are currently 0 pictures tagged with coconut_crab, and I don't rightly anticipate seeing any in the near future. We should really not be so nitpicky with this sort of thing.

corgi_bread said:
They spend the first several years of their life living in the ocean.

Also, how far are we going to split hairs on something like this? There are currently 0 pictures tagged with coconut_crab, and I don't rightly anticipate seeing any in the near future. We should really not be so nitpicky with this sort of thing.

An artist will make a coconut crab OC just to spit you

corgi_bread said:

Also, how far are we going to split hairs on something like this?

I feel like a good portion of these tag suggestions aren't even really needed. If it ain't broke, don't fix it

corgi_bread said:
They spend the first several years of their life living in the ocean.

Also, how far are we going to split hairs on something like this? There are currently 0 pictures tagged with coconut_crab, and I don't rightly anticipate seeing any in the near future. We should really not be so nitpicky with this sort of thing.

And when they're adults, water drowns them.

Or are we tagging frogs and toads as marine as well because as tadpoles they live in the water?

Conker said:
An artist will make a coconut crab OC just to spit you

I actually really hope so. There's a distinct lack of unique, original character designs out there.

Helio said:
I feel like a good portion of these tag suggestions aren't even really needed. If it ain't broke, don't fix it

It helps keep tagging consistent and detailed. A user may tag, say...lobster, but not necessarily also think to tag crustacean or marine. Aliases help fill in the gaps from human error.

Halite said:
And when they're adults, water drowns them.

Or are we tagging frogs and toads as marine as well because as tadpoles they live in the water?

I'm not sure which biology classes you've been taking, but frogs live in the water, and toads regularly frequent the water to mate and otherwise move about. My point is we shouldn't immediately reject a valid tag implication because of one obscure, esoteric species that you pulled out of thin air to invalidate it.

The marine tag is a little misleading, anyway. To me, marine implies living in the ocean, which not all of the creatures that fall under the tag do. I'd be for splitting it into marine and aquatic to make it less confusing.

corgi_bread said:
I actually really hope so. There's a distinct lack of unique, original character designs out there.
It helps keep tagging consistent and detailed. A user may tag, say...lobster, but not necessarily also think to tag crustacean or marine. Aliases help fill in the gaps from human error.

I'm not sure which biology classes you've been taking, but frogs live in the water, and toads regularly frequent the water to mate and otherwise move about. My point is we shouldn't immediately reject a valid tag implication because of one obscure, esoteric species that you pulled out of thin air to invalidate it.

The marine tag is a little misleading, anyway. To me, marine implies living in the ocean, which not all of the creatures that fall under the tag do. I'd be for splitting it into marine and aquatic to make it less confusing.

I think THAT's kind of splitting hairs now :P Do we really need two tags to differentiate between things that live in water and things that live near water?

tony311 said:
I think THAT's kind of splitting hairs now :P Do we really need two tags to differentiate between things that live in water and things that live near water?

I meant aquatic in regards to stuff that doesn't live in the ocean but instead freshwater, but I probably agree with you that we don't need the extra distinction. But my point still stands on my original claim, which is that we shouldn't immediately discount a valid implication because of one species that may or may not touch water after the first few years of its life.

On the contrary, we should discount it if there's a potential exception to the implication.
To be effective implications have to work 100% of the time, every time.
Otherwise we end up with incorrect tags on images and no way to fix them.

And, it's not just one species, there are a number of terrestrial crustaceans:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Terrestrial_crustaceans
You'll note, there's some in there that never see bodies of water on a regular basis.
Look at the woodlouse, aka the pillbug.
People assume it's an insect, but it's actually a crustacean that lives in rotting wood.