Implicating snowing → snow
Link to implication

Reason:

Well, this seems obvious...
Unless we want to use snow tag for just snow that's on ground?

Ok, so you putting snowing⇨snow?

I think the snowing➙snow implication is fine, but these should remain separate, since you can have snow on the ground when it's not snowing.

agreed

Do we really need a snowing tag though? I think a single snow tag encompassing all types of snow would work just fine.

tony311 said:
Do we really need a snowing tag though?

It's often the focus of the image, just like rain and other unusual weather. So therefore I think it should be tagged; there's definitely hundreds of less useful tags that have been kept..

Genjar said:
It's often the focus of the image, just like rain and other unusual weather. So therefore I think it should be tagged; there's definitely hundreds of less useful tags that have been kept..

Agreed on both points.

Since everyone seems to be in favor, and tony didn't seem to be harshly opposed, I would say it's time to approve this

Rainbow_Dash said:
Since everyone seems to be in favor, and tony didn't seem to be harshly opposed, I would say it's time to approve this

I say yes to this but raining needs to be aliased to rain because rain is falling liquid and raining is the exact same thing

TheHuskyK9 said:
I say yes to this but raining needs to be aliased to rain because rain is falling liquid and raining is the exact same thing

I think we should differentiate for the same reasons as snow and snowing.

123easy said:
I think we should differentiate for the same reasons as snow and snowing.

snow that is not snowing is still snow.

rain that is not raining is just water.

DrHorse said:
rain that is not raining is just water.

It could be other liquids too (learnt that when I tried to implicate rain -> water, long ago)