Tag implication river -> water

Create implication river -> water
create implication ocean -> water
create implication lake -> water

Reason: All these require water.

You could theoretically have things like a totally frozen lake or a river of blood though.

I'm also concerned about images where water is not the focus, such as post #738990 under river.

jjj14 said:
You could theoretically have things like a totally frozen lake or a river of blood though.

I'd imagine that frozen_lake or blood_river could be made into distinct tags.

Anelaid said:
I'd imagine that frozen_lake or blood_river could be made into distinct tags.

And someone down the line will request a frozen_lake -> lake implication. Then we'd have to de-implicate the lake -> water implication.

We could keep them separate for the reason that lake refers to a lake with water, while a frozen lake refers to a lake that is frozen over.

bloody tears isn't implicating tears, so we can use the same for frozen lake not implicating lake

A frozen lake is still a lake, and it's really annoying to have to come up with band-aid solutions just to get around an implication.

There's also the focus argument I posted about four posts up.