remove implication tank -> motor_vehicle

BUR #2720 has been rejected.

remove implication tank -> motor_vehicle

We have a lot of walking tanks, post #1665959, post #1334526 and a handful of hover tanks, post #2340915. You could argue that they arent really tanks, but where do you draw the line?

EDIT: The bulk update request #2720 (forum #166957) has been rejected by @Hillside_Moose.

This is eerily reminiscent of that recent attempt to invalidate the motor_vehicle -> ground_vehicle implication based on the notion that the aircraft in post #3584003 is a type of car. It seems like trying to warp an enormous tag to accommodate a few exceptions that challenge the popular understanding of what the word means.

IMO, vehicles without tracks or wheels shouldn't be tagged tank. We already have walker for tanks with legs, and there should be something like a hover_tank tag (I was certain that we had a tag like this already? Weird...) for tanks that hover. It's no different from the way we tag flying cars separately from cars.

iridescent_slime said:

IMO, vehicles without tracks or wheels shouldn't be tagged tank. We already have walker for tanks with legs, and there should be something like a hover_tank tag (I was certain that we had a tag like this already? Weird...) for tanks that hover. It's no different from the way we tag flying cars separately from cars.

I agree.

The bulk update request #2720 (forum #166957) has been rejected by @Hillside_Moose.