Posted under Tags
create implication maple_tree -> tree
create implication fir_tree -> tree
create implication apple_tree -> tree
create implication tree -> plant
The first three are more or less random stuff but the implication tree to plant should be done because a tree ist a plant. It is even stated in the wiki page.
On the other hand I see that nearly nothing implicates plant...Is there a reason for that?
The technical definition of "plant" is "any member of the kingdom Plantae". But the more commonly used definition, which is what people are going to use for tagging unless you go out of your way to teach them otherwise, is "an herb or other small vegetable growth, in contrast with a tree or a shrub". I think the latter definition is both more intuitive and more useful.
Similarly, you wouldn't want to tag all the pictures with humans in them as animal, even though the wiki for animal stupidly says it's "a living organism characterized by voluntary movement", which includes humans.
Provence said:
This would greatly depend on if the plant tag should be used as a catchall for all plants or are there plants that we may wish to not include under the tag. For example perhaps plant may be better referring to non-tree plants, as trees tend to be visually dissimilar and/or add to the image differently than smaller non-tree plants, or something similar.
mock said:
The technical definition of "plant" is "any member of the kingdom Plantae". But the more commonly used definition, which is what people are going to use for tagging unless you go out of your way to teach them otherwise, is "an herb or other small vegetable growth, in contrast with a tree or a shrub". I think the latter definition is both more intuitive and more useful.
Similarly, you wouldn't want to tag all the pictures with humans in them as animal, even though the wiki for animal stupidly says it's "a living organism characterized by voluntary movement", which includes humans.
Hmm, I don't see how that fits for humans because humans and animal are distinct but not biologically but philosophically, i.e. humans do have traits that distinct them from other animals.
In terms of plants I don't really see why a tree is so much different from a bush or cactus. It's just bigger (and even that isn't fully true) but that's it. If a tree would be a mushroom then that's true.
Making tree imply plant would make the latter tag practically useless for searching for any plant that isn't a tree, as trees would completely dominate search results and plant -tree would no longer return anything. Let's reserve the tag for herbaceous plants; this approach is simpler and more consistent with everyday English usage.
Provence said:
In terms of plants I don't really see why a tree is so much different from a bush or cactus. It's just bigger (and even that isn't fully true) but that's it. If a tree would be a mushroom then that's true.
When most people speak of plants in a non-scientific context, they generally mean vegetation without woody growth, rather than trees or algae. For the bulk of users, keeping these tags separate will make them more useful for searching, which is why we have these tags in the first place.
iridescent_slime said:
Making tree imply plant would make the latter tag practically useless for searching for any plant that isn't a tree, as trees would completely dominate search results and plant -tree would no longer return anything. Let's reserve the tag for herbaceous plants; this approach is simpler and more consistent with everyday English usage.
When most people speak of plants in a non-scientific context, they generally mean vegetation without woody growth, rather than trees or algae. For the bulk of users, keeping these tags separate will make them more useful for searching, which is why we have these tags in the first place.
Hmm, makes sense.
Then how about stuff like cactus and stuff?
iridescent_slime said:
I have no strong opinion regarding cactus, moss, seaweed, ivy, et cetera. There is some overlap between the cactus tag and cacturne, but a lot of Grass-type Pokemon already get tagged plant anyway.
Pokemon? Hmm, I'd never tag a pokemon a plant since they are pocket monsters (i.e. something lika animals xD).
Hmm, ok, if the majority don't associate tree with plant I'll remove this request from the bulk^^.
BUR #2295 has been approved by @evazion.
create implication fruit_tree -> tree
create implication giant_tree -> tree
Reason: Just a couple more implications. Both tags are pretty well established at 100+ posts apiece, and any post without a tree in it probably shouldn't have either of these tags in the first place.
EDIT: The bulk update request #2295 (forum #163259) has been approved by @evazion.
Updated by DanbooruBot
The bulk update request #2295 (forum #163259) has been approved by @evazion.
