Tag implication: bomb -> explosive

create implication bomb -> explosive

Link to implication

Please stop submitting implication requests without reasoning. Just because two things are linked in the real world doesn't mean they should necessarily be linked here. I see no benefit in this particular implication.

Paint bombs in splatoon are also under the bomb tag but are by no means explosives.

The explosive wiki does mention bombs, and is already implicated by mines and grenades. bombs wiki also calls it an explosive. If explosive is going to be an umbrella tag for things that blow up, I wouldn't want bombs to be left out.

fossilnix said:

The explosive wiki does mention bombs, and is already implicated by mines and grenades. bombs wiki also calls it an explosive. If explosive is going to be an umbrella tag for things that blow up, I wouldn't want bombs to be left out.

Right.
Should be clear if one reads the wikis.
And Log...if you see no benefit, then we can nuke the other implications.
Would be the same thing in green.

The tag implication bomb -> explosive has been rejected.

Btw. since @Log brought up that bombs in Splatoon don't count as explosive:
There are also Mines. So: Shouldn't the implication from mine to explosive be nuked then?

I don't see a case where a type of mine doesn't count as a traditional explosive so someone better give a good example.

Wouldn't it be better for the splatoon explosives to get a paint_bomb tag or something similar, and have bomb implicate explosive?
Or are there even more variants of bombs that doesn't fit into the explosive tag?

I agree with you two.
Splatoon is something that has its own word for bombs, mines et cetera (and even these bombs do explode).
Well then, the Splatoon word for those bombs are normally splat_bombs (There are two other bomb types in Splatoon, so maybe something more general like Ink_bomb.