Implicating tree -> wood.

Reason: just as logs are made of it, so are trees.

gee, you sure do love wood.

So house should also be aliased to bricks, humans to flesh etc.?

When I see a tree I don't really care much about the material it's made of. By analogy, I see a living animal and I don't care that it's made of meat and bone. The only situations where it might be appropriate are where you have someone who takes the material out of ze nature, like a woodcutter or a butcher.

*snrk* And no, not all houses are made of bricks. But we already have wood in use generically, and wood in use as an alias of logs, so taking it a step further and having trees imply wood is logical.

Flesh is too common a tag to really use, as well. Everything except some odd skeleton-only pics wouldn't qualify for flesh, or sommat. Too broad a catagory = doesn't get tagged.

123easy said:
*snrk* And no, not all houses are made of bricks. But we already have wood in use generically, and wood in use as an alias of logs, so taking it a step further and having trees imply wood is logical.

Flesh is too common a tag to really use, as well. Everything except some odd skeleton-only pics wouldn't qualify for flesh, or sommat. Too broad a catagory = doesn't get tagged.

I was just trying to be snarky by the superpower of sarcasm. I just found it odd to tag it as the material "wood", unless you meant a "group of trees" wood. I understood it with the logs, but isn't this sort of streching it?

That'd be woods, and that's already covered under forest, and forest already implies tree.

It's for accuracy's sake that I bring it up. Basic: Wood. Simple: Tree, log. Complex: Forest. One metatag, then branching subtags inside that.

how about this, if its a tree. its a tree, its also made of wood so add wood to it too so we dont have to deal with logs cabins being trees too...

implication added. :P

Darlthris said:
how about this, if its a tree. its a tree, its also made of wood so add wood to it too so we dont have to deal with logs cabins being trees too...

logs implicate wood, not trees.

Thanks for adding, Snow.

I dunnooo.... Clothing tags don't implicate "cloth," and I think this is fine. IF the wood is separate from the tree, tag it wood. If it's just a tree, tag it "tree." no need for "wood." It's not incorrect, but it's also wholly unnecessary. There are no trees made of shit, babies, or other material, so it's a bit redundant. It'd be like implicating penis->penis_cells and that's just weird. If it's this tree in particular, tag it "wood" because of the double entendres.

post #140899

but we also don't have a cloth tag. We did already have a wood tag. If we already had it, might as well have it properly associated, no?

Clothing wouldn't imply cloth regardless because not all clothing has cloth. (for example, "paper" clothing)

true, and good point.

Also PVC, that's not really cloth. I suppose it's an ok implication, I just think it's unnecessary and redundant, but as I said earlier, not incorrect.

If we didn't already have the wood tag, I'd not have mentioned it. But since we do, not implying it seems wrong.

123easy said:
If we didn't already have the wood tag, I'd not have mentioned it. But since we do, not implying it seems wrong.

-shrugs- Works for me.