snow on...

BUR #61151 is pending approval.

create implication snow_on_head -> snow
create implication snow_on_tree -> snow
create implication snow_on_headwear -> snow
create implication snow_on_body -> snow
create implication snow_on_clothes -> snow
create implication snow_on_face -> snow

snow implications

Snow currently specifies that it's for snow on the ground. Does it make sense for posts where snow isn't the main focus or doesn't have a significant presence (post #11499618) to make up part of the results of pictures depicting snow as a major theme of the image (post #11572849)? What about other snow-related tags that would sooner make sense to be implied? Snowing, which is for falling snow, doesn't imply snow to keep the distinction between posts with just snow falling and snow majorly present in the image (topic #5759, topic #6981). Snowmen and snowballs are made of snow but don't imply it.

WRS said in forum #445408:

Snow currently specifies that it's for snow on the ground. Does it make sense for posts where snow isn't the main focus or doesn't have a significant presence (post #11499618) to make up part of the results of pictures depicting snow as a major theme of the image (post #11572849)? What about other snow-related tags that would sooner make sense to be implied? Snowing, which is for falling snow, doesn't imply snow to keep the distinction between posts with just snow falling and snow majorly present in the image (topic #5759, topic #6981). Snowmen and snowballs are made of snow but don't imply it.

imo it's supposed to mean snow that has landed somewhere and on the ground is just one example. just like rain doesn't imply water. if it was always supposed to be only on the ground the tag would be called snow on ground.

My post is some parts rhetorical, some parts genuine questions. When the example posts and wiki by and far largely suggest it's intended for snow on the ground, what are you forming your opinion off of that runs counter to that? Not that the wiki is gospel, but I'm just not sure that I'm fully on board with turning snow into an "on anything" tag, grouping post #11499618 and post #11572849 (two very different things) into one tag.

WRS said in forum #445473:

My post is some parts rhetorical, some parts genuine questions. When the example posts and wiki by and far largely suggest it's intended for snow on the ground, what are you forming your opinion off of that runs counter to that? Not that the wiki is gospel, but I'm just not sure that I'm fully on board with turning snow into an "on anything" tag, grouping post #11499618 and post #11572849 (two very different things) into one tag.

the tag name. if it's intended for only snow that is on the ground, why is it not called snow on ground?

it's pretty easy to find examples of snow not being on the ground that were tagged with snow like post #11583224 and post #11159718

Snow is a tag that's existed since 2009, a time where people likely didn't need neon signs telling them the spirit of the tag (the line that it's for snow on the ground has been there since 2010). We can't have anything nice if every simple tag needs to be named for people who don't read wikis.

I feel like there are better angles you could've approached this from. Right now, your thought is "even if the wiki says it's only for snow on the ground, the tag's name isn't that, so it's not for that". Have you considered orienting your thinking to "maybe these posts are mistagged and shouldn't have snow" or asking "since X, Y and Z posts are tagged with snow but the wiki says it's for snow on the ground, should snow also account for more than just snow on the ground?". The latter is basically what you're challenging by requesting these implications, but I'm slightly worried about the way you reached that conclusion.

The idea that snow should only be used for ground snow is kind of stupid given, even if we accept the split between snow and snowing, there are a lot of other surfaces that snow could collect on.

WRS said in forum #445514:

Snow is a tag that's existed since 2009, a time where people likely didn't need neon signs telling them the spirit of the tag (the line that it's for snow on the ground has been there since 2010). We can't have anything nice if every simple tag needs to be named for people who don't read wikis.

I feel like there are better angles you could've approached this from. Right now, your thought is "even if the wiki says it's only for snow on the ground, the tag's name isn't that, so it's not for that". Have you considered orienting your thinking to "maybe these posts are mistagged and shouldn't have snow" or asking "since X, Y and Z posts are tagged with snow but the wiki says it's for snow on the ground, should snow also account for more than just snow on the ground?". The latter is basically what you're challenging by requesting these implications, but I'm slightly worried about the way you reached that conclusion.

sorry for disappointing you, wrs, but i didn't read the wiki for snow before making the bur

because why would anyone read the wiki for snow? it's snow

i saw snow on head was a tag and it didn't imply snow so i made the bur

the possibility that there could be a clause that said you can't use the tag snow when you see snow on a post if the snow isn't specifically on the ground didn't even cross my mind

now that you point it out i kind of want to reject my own bur but if i do that people will complain i rejected my own bur

Yes, the clause in snow to "use this tag when there is snow on the ground" seems to contradict this BUR, but there is no reason we can't change that clause if we think it would make more sense for how to use the tag.
Especially when that clause was added in 2010 and reads a lot more like it was meant to distinguish snow from snowing, meaning lying snow from falling snow, not necessarily snow lying on the ground from snow lying on a tree. "Snow on the ground" would just be the most natural way to express that.

More to the point, I think the distinction between lying snow and falling snow was made in the first place because snow is often just added into any background to give a wintery feel, and there are lot of pictures where that snow doesn't interact with any characters in focus.
But when someone actually has snow on head, that already puts the snow a lot more into focus and means that it's actually physically there, instead of just being a background element for vibes. So when someone searches for snow (and at least knows that it doesn't automatically include snowing), I don't think they're necessarily looking only for snow on the ground, but for any snow that has a physical presence in the picture, be it lying on the ground, on a tree, or on a character.
That's why I think this BUR is good and would require only a small change to the snow wiki.

Whoops, I was handling something else and got ninja'd. Though that's my thought as well. That's why I initially asked "does it make sense to group these types of posts together" and "what about other snow-related tags", then also mentioned "not that the wiki is gospel". If a tag used in practice and its wiki (or name) tell different stories, there's a good chance one or the other is wrong, the tagged posts or the wiki (or name).

I think it'd be fine if it were to reach consensus that snow should be for any snow resting on something. It's just that when I go through the tag I see more posts with snow on the ground being the general theme/direction of what this tag wanted to have, hence my hesitation with upvoting it outright.

I agree with you LightSolas the wiki clause seem to be for tagging "build ups" and I would have no issue tagging images like most of the Yatadera Narumi ones with snow since there is a good volume and it is prominent, but at the same time images like post #9471419 are snow_on_headwear and barely register as having more snow than snowing. post #9608919 would be another example you can hardly see the snow on her.