The tag implication #40402 spellbook -> book has been approved.

Reason: A spellbook is a type of book.

EDIT: The tag implication spellbook -> book (forum #314221) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

Any reason this shouldn't just be aliased? Spellbooks look like normal books, just sometimes have a title that implies magic, or are being used alongside magic.

furrin_gok said:
Any reason this shouldn't just be aliased? Spellbooks look like normal books, just sometimes have a title that implies magic, or are being used alongside magic.

Maybe, but then you would have to alias all kinds of books like comic books, textbooks, phone books, booklets. Which to some might be too extreme of an abstraction, like making Video Games, Card Games, and Board Games all aliased to game.

furrin_gok said:
Any reason this shouldn't just be aliased? Spellbooks look like normal books, just sometimes have a title that implies magic, or are being used alongside magic.

Possibly, but some books seem to be pretty clearly magical.
post #2842099
That being said, you might still have a point. But if we do keep this implication, it should also probably implicate magic. Otherwise, I don’t think you could call it a spellbook if it doesn’t have some visible connection to magic.

foolysh said:
Maybe, but then you would have to alias all kinds of books like comic books, textbooks, phone books, booklets. Which to some might be too extreme of an abstraction, like making Video Games, Card Games, and Board Games all aliased to game.

Not really. A comic book is a thin book. A textbook is a bulky, cover-protected book. A phone book is a bulky, thin-cover book. Booklets are thin things entirely.
A spellbook, meanwhile, is any of the above, but with "Something relating to magic," which could be any number of things that could typically be tagged on their own.

scaliespe said:
Possibly, but some books seem to be pretty clearly magical.
post #2842099
That being said, you might still have a point. But if we do keep this implication, it should also probably implicate magic. Otherwise, I don’t think you could call it a spellbook if it doesn’t have some visible connection to magic.

The book has a magic circle on it, and magic is creating the same magic circle above the book, but what clarifies that the book is magic?

I’d say the symbol is coming from the book, as evidenced by the same symbol being seen on the book’s cover - or at least the book is participating in the magic in some way, otherwise the symbol could have no relevance to the book’s cover.

Perhaps a more obvious example:
post #1004994
Here, the magic is clearly just emanating from the book itself.

Though, I think it could be even simpler still. Most of the 100+ images tagged with spellbook seem to depict a magic user holding or interacting with a book during magic use. That seems good enough to imply that the book itself has some connection to magic.

That’s just my argument that a spellbook still qualifies for TWYS, however. My argument for aliasing it would be that it might be too niche to be a very useful tag. However, with 144 tags so far, perhaps others would disagree with me about that. It seems to be quite a bit more popular than other overly-niche tags I’ve seen.

The tag implication spellbook -> book (forum #314221) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

scaliespe said:
I’d say the symbol is coming from the book, as evidenced by the same symbol being seen on the book’s cover - or at least the book is participating in the magic in some way, otherwise the symbol could have no relevance to the book’s cover.

Perhaps a more obvious example:
post #1004994
Here, the magic is clearly just emanating from the book itself.

Though, I think it could be even simpler still. Most of the 100+ images tagged with spellbook seem to depict a magic user holding or interacting with a book during magic use. That seems good enough to imply that the book itself has some connection to magic.

That’s just my argument that a spellbook still qualifies for TWYS, however. My argument for aliasing it would be that it might be too niche to be a very useful tag. However, with 144 tags so far, perhaps others would disagree with me about that. It seems to be quite a bit more popular than other overly-niche tags I’ve seen.

That example still looks like a 100% generic tome, or a large book. Who's to say that the light whisps aren't the work of the character there, perhaps drawing something out of the book, or infusing it with their experiences like some sort of magical autobiography?

furrin_gok said:
That example still looks like a 100% generic tome, or a large book. Who's to say that the light whisps aren't the work of the character there, perhaps drawing something out of the book, or infusing it with their experiences like some sort of magical autobiography?

Well,

scaliespe said:
Most of the 100+ images tagged with spellbook seem to depict a magic user holding or interacting with a book during magic use. That seems good enough to imply that the book itself has some connection to magic.

Similarly, how do we tag wand? Sometimes it’s obvious from its appearance; sometimes it’s not. Sometimes a magic wand can literally just be a stick, such as in post #2842816 - it can be determined to be a wand rather than a stick due to the context in which it’s being used. Similarly, if a book is being used for magic, I don’t think it’s a problem to call it a spellbook. Perhaps magic_book would be more precise, but spellbook is already in use, and it’s but a minor semantic difference.