Implicating wading -> submerged.
Reason: Seems self-explanatory to me. But vice-versa does not apply.
Updated by ghostrigger
Posted under General
Submerged need not be completely underwater...
Maybe it's your understanding of "submerged" that needs to be changed. I've learned during my time at Danbooru that an external definition does not necessarily have much bearing on a wiki here. That said, maybe some clarification and discussion is in order.
Updated by hungkok2007
hungkok2007 said:
Submerged need not be completely underwater, that's what the underwater tag is for.Maybe it's your understanding of "submerged" that needs to be changed. I've learned during my time at Danbooru that an external definition does not necessarily have much bearing on a wiki here.
That second part, holier-than-thou pompous attitude, was completely unnecessary.
CodeKyuubi said:
That second part, holier-than-thou pompous attitude, was completely unnecessary.
Hmm. Curious, since I was only pointing out how I have had to change some of my own understandings in the past as a result of new discoveries on Danbooru. Sometimes from quite polite and erudite members, occasionally from ignorant dipshits.
hungkok2007 said:
Hmm. Curious, since I was only pointing out how I have had to change some of my own understandings in the past as a result of new discoveries on Danbooru. Sometimes from quite polite and erudite members, occasionally from ignorant dipshits.
The italics in your post 'emphasizes', which turns your sentence from simple statement to pompousness, arrogant, and superior. Maybe you should fix your attitude and learn that the use of italics and bold creates emphasis that can work against you if you don't know what you're doing.
On the other note, I have never once used submerged when wading was present. As it stands, regular users will, I believe, consider submerged as the equivalent of underwater, as RiderFan believed. Perhaps there does need to be an alias, but I think OP would push his point better if he wasn't acting like an ass if someone doesn't agree with him.
inb4: you're an ignorant dipshit the wiki says so [wiki made by humans and can be open to human error or misunderstanding]
CodeKyuubi: So you're saying that RiderFan wasn't being arrogant or pompous because he/she didn't use bold or italics? I posit that his/her use of "must" instead of "perhaps" and/or "could" was in itself was a point of tension. And therefore I did not start this ball rolling in your direction.
I agree with some of what you say, but you're really laying it on thick. Back the fuck off and let some productive discussion take place.
hung: Perhaps it was his adamant belief that the popular definition be used that caused him to use 'must'. But you responded with open hostility when you had multiple other, less provocative, options to choose from.
Log: In my opinion, submerged's wiki definition is too far removed from the general definition of submerged, such that there would be a need for future tag gardening if it remains as is due to the misuse of the tag, or lack thereof.
And for me, I always considered wading to be water waist-deep and submerged higher than that (Though I never uploaded any pictures that required this definition of submerged).
Updated by CodeKyuubi
There are a few issues here:
1. Submerged typically means completely enveloped in water or some other liquid. post #983428 doesn't fit. Actually, not a single image in the first 5 pages fits in my opinion.
2. Underwater would seem to fit that need, but we define it as the image as a whole taking place underwater.
3. It seems like there's a big difference between post #973739 and post #976537.
So underwater when the whole image is below water, submerged when some object or individual is below a liquid surface in an otherwise not underwater image? But what if it's totally under some liquid that isn't water? Just roll with it?
Or we just say fuck it, there's already a thousand posts in submerged, and just accept the existing wiki definition. That works too.
My interpretation is the same as jxh2154's. I haven't spoken up yet though because by that reasoning "submerged" and "underwater" are synonymous, and most of the images under submerged would need a new name to label that concept ("at least partly within a fluid").
I guess the cop-out to make the current definition and usage work is to argue that the feet (or some other body part) of the subject are submerged, despite the fact that the character itself is not.
hungkok2007 said:
Since there are a fair number of images here where subjects sit in two inches water without walking, we might be looking at a new tag addition (or removal) somewhere.
I went with submerged for those kind of images seeing as there were older posts that were tagged with it, although I always thought of submerged as being waist-up like CodeKyuubi said.
I would say a new tag would be better as the shallow water sitting/kneeling is different from wading or submerged. At the moment, a name for it escapes me.
jxh2154 said:
3. It seems like there's a big difference between post #973739 and post #976537.
post #973739 I would go with the aforementioned tag.
post #976537 I'm thinking maybe afloat as well.
So underwater when the whole image is below water, submerged when some object or individual is below a liquid surface in an otherwise not underwater image? But what if it's totally under some liquid that isn't water? Just roll with it?
post #578887 and post #247710 (NSFW) come to mind.
How would something like post #981139 and post #981944 fit in? This also brings to mind afloat as some characters have their body almost entirely underwater, while others are half-in, half-above. Tag manually?
sorry to bump this, but how about:
create implication wading -> partially_submerged
this rather fits well and doesn't necessarily need that the whole body in a liquid.
I think it depends on how much of their body is underwater. Just like how nobody tags partially_submerged to soaking_feet images, I wouldn't use it for post #1101579 or post #1102253.
Maybe if it at least reaches the thighs.
it appears that the original wading's wiki mentions up to the thighs as a cutoff but was changed later on to no deeper than the character's height
should we revert it back then? it would be nice if we can all agree on which post qualify for one and set the limit (body part/position) than relatively tagging, wading, partially_submerged, and related tags based on one's personal discretion. and i'm willing to volunteer clean these up, if agreed on. or we can just let the status quo stay as it is if nobody sees it worthy of effort.