Flower implications

BUR #2436 has been approved by @evazion.

create implication rafflesia_(flower) -> flower
create implication orchid -> flower

Reason: Most other flower tags are implicated as flowers, what else is missing? Are there any reasons to not tag an image with, say, cherry blossoms as flower too?

EDIT: The bulk update request #2436 (forum #164821) has been approved by @evazion.

I don't think cherry blossoms should imply flower, which as a tag appears to to used almost entirely for whole flowers. A lot of cherry blossoms in images are indistinct backgrounds (post #3847842, post #3846577) or individual petals (post #3845168, post #3846219), which is a separate tag.

Blue_Trident said:

I don't think cherry blossoms should imply flower, which as a tag appears to to used almost entirely for whole flowers. A lot of cherry blossoms in images are indistinct backgrounds (post #3847842, post #3846577) or individual petals (post #3845168, post #3846219), which is a separate tag.

Agreed.

Thanks, that makes sense.

Mind you, the other two implications seem fine. Cherry blossoms are unique among flowers in that they appear in tons of pictures, and at the same time are very rarely a significant focus of them.

The bulk update request #2436 (forum #164821) has been approved by @evazion.

Removed cherry blossoms -> flower and implied the other two.