Remove implication web_address -> watermark

BUR #7379 has been approved by @evazion.

remove implication web_address -> watermark

Not every occurrence of a web address is a watermark. For example post #4824772 (music video) contains a web address in the intro but not in the rest of the video. Other examples include post #2642851 and post #2949607. None of the other things that can be watermarks implicate watermark.

This implication is pretty bad because it has brought us to absurd conclusions: see topic #13776 for more examples.

I don't disagree with the implication removal, though people could stand to use the tag more, but do we want to tag those random URLs shown in browsers?

Unbreakable said:

I don't disagree with the implication removal, though people could stand to use the tag more, but do we want to tag those random URLs shown in browsers?

They might sometimes hide easter eggs like in post #4719279.

The bulk update request #7379 (forum #197497) has been approved by @evazion.