Implicating broadsword → sword
Link to implication

Reason:

A broadsword is a type of sword.

Oh boy, should I begin a list of swords that may or may not be tagged on this site? I'm already noticing the lack of claymore, bastard_sword, saber (which needs to be suffixed and disambiguated), and plenty more! And not singling out implications, some aliases may be needed too...

Regardless, +1.

Is an implication really necessary, wouldn't it be better to alias it? Otherwise, you'd have to implicate other subsets of straight swords for consistency, such as shortsword, longsword and greatsword. It makes sense to implicate visually distinctive types of swords like katana, scimitar, rapier and maybe even claymore, but it wouldn't make sense to keep subtypes whose only defining features are being slightly longer, shorter or wider than 'normal'.

JAKXXX3 said:
Is an implication really necessary, wouldn't it be better to alias it? Otherwise, you'd have to implicate other subsets of straight swords for consistency, such as shortsword, longsword and greatsword. It makes sense to implicate visually distinctive types of swords like katana, scimitar, rapier and maybe even claymore, but it wouldn't make sense to keep subtypes whose only defining features are being slightly longer, shorter or wider than 'normal'.

Uh... those three you listed, the shortsword, longsword, and greatsword, are visually different by length and blade size. You also listed categories, if you assume stock blades are not unique then there are five types of swords: daggers, short swords, medium swords, long swords, and 2-handers. I could use blade instead of sword, but not all swords are accurately labeled with "blade".

Siral_Exan said:
Uh... those three you listed, the shortsword, longsword, and greatsword, are visually different by length and blade size. You also listed categories, if you assume stock blades are not unique then there are five types of swords: daggers, short swords, medium swords, long swords, and 2-handers. I could use blade instead of sword, but not all swords are accurately labeled with "blade".

I know that shortswords, longswords, broadswords, and greatswords have clear technical differences, but they are visually similar for the most part. This site's primary role concerns art, if objects look highly similar, it is sometimes better to ignore subtle esoteric differences and alias them for the sake of efficiency. I also doubt that the majority of artists on this site are actually carry enough knowledge on historical weapons to actually tell the difference between such similar swords.

I've also started on the list you mentioned by adding it to the sword wiki, feel free to contribute to it. sabre_(weapon) does have its own entry which is used, though it seems as though someone neglected to disambiguate sabre itself, as you mentioned.

Siral_Exan said:
...saber (which needs to be suffixed and disambiguated)...

We already have a tag for under the proper nane, sabre_(weapon).

As for the other swords? I suggest aliasing longsword to sword, and claymore to greatsword. Two size categories is enough, since those aren't often drawn accurately anyway.

Shortsword is problematic because it tends to be closer in size to broad-bladed daggers, rather than actual swords.

Genjar said:
We already have a tag for under the proper nane, sabre_(weapon).

I noticed that too, though sabre itself ought to be disambiguated.

Sabre is disambiguated. Saber is the one that needs the disambiguation.

BlueDingo said:
Sabre is disambiguated. Saber is the one that needs the disambiguation.

That should've been disambiguated back when the sabertooth tag was sorted. I'm sure it was brought up, but for some reason the disambiguation ended up under sabertooth_(disambiguation) instead of saber_(disambiguation)... Ah well.

BlueDingo said:
Sabre is disambiguated. Saber is the one that needs the disambiguation.

Oh, I didn't notice the spelling difference until just now.

JAKXXX3 said:
I also doubt that the majority of artists on this site are actually carry enough knowledge on historical weapons to actually tell the difference between such similar swords.

That's what the five categories covers: unless you lived without ever seeing a blade of any description, you should be able to understand the size difference between the five. If you want to suggest aliases, then take into consideration a category: a broadsword, excluding artistic freedom, fits under a long sword, a large blade size, but shorter length than a 2 hander.

And frankly, your concern over artist's tagging X is invalid: if an artist knew how the sword was drawn specifically, then they know the name of the sword. If they drew a generic sword, then we have the sword tag to cover that. If they called it a broadsword, then chances are it's a broadsword, but if they call it a sword, and it looks like sword, then it just needs to be tagged sword. It is the user who may not know what the name is, but you can't rely on everyone to know anything at a given time; this is where other users can step in and tag for them. Hell, I don't know shit about aircrafts, yet some people do, and are capable of tagging the specific aircraft. The same argument applies with a sword.

Siral_Exan said:
And frankly, your concern over artist's tagging X is invalid: if an artist knew how the sword was drawn specifically, then they know the name of the sword. If they drew a generic sword, then we have the sword tag to cover that. If they called it a broadsword, then chances are it's a broadsword, but if they call it a sword, and it looks like sword, then it just needs to be tagged sword. It is the user who may not know what the name is, but you can't rely on everyone to know anything at a given time; this is where other users can step in and tag for them. Hell, I don't know shit about aircrafts, yet some people do, and are capable of tagging the specific aircraft. The same argument applies with a sword.

I am mostly concerned over artists misunderstanding the exact features that separates one sword for another. Then they might pick a certain type of sword, draw it and notice it doesn't really fit the character, and then modify it so it suits the overall image better. If such an scenario occurs, the sword would be initially based on a specific type, but the modifications could change specific features which would result in it being classified as something else. There's also the tendency for some artists to combine elements of different weapons, or add features like random spikes which would be highly impractical.

JAKXXX3 said:
I am mostly concerned over artists misunderstanding the exact features that separates one sword for another. Then they might pick a certain type of sword, draw it and notice it doesn't really fit the character, and then modify it so it suits the overall image better. If such an scenario occurs, the sword would be initially based on a specific type, but the modifications could change specific features which would result in it being classified as something else. There's also the tendency for some artists to combine elements of different weapons, or add features like random spikes which would be highly impractical.

If a blade is indescribable, or doesn't fit just one name, then I can't really say it gets tagged any more specific than sword. I'm a huge WoW nerd, "literally" every blade has a name yet only two would need to be tagged on site. I can't say much on your first point, but I also don't think that it'll be a problem I'll stumble apon in my life. Italics because it feels like such a unique thought, I don't think it'll occur in the way you say it.

Siral_Exan said:
yet some people do, and are capable of tagging the specific aircraft.

I mean, yeah, but there are also a surprising amount of people who anthropomorphize and sexualize aircraft...they are tagging them specifically because they are so passionate about them.

Whereas swords are usually just props. items that indicate "oh, this person is a warrior"...done. Like JAKXXX3 said the average artist probably doesn't know enough about swords to be consciously drawing a specific sword. In fact I'm sure a Blacksmith would look at their work and say "what the hell is that? That's so impractical I can't even classify it."

Certain tags for very distinct swords should stay, like scimitar, but things like greatsword or bastard sword? Those probably lie outside the realm of common knowledge and are a bit too arcane to worry about.

I think it should boil down to just sword for most swords and huge_sword for impractically over-sized blades like the buster sword. no small, no medium, it's just a sword and if it gets too small it becomes a dagger. Easy.

Dyrone said:
I mean, yeah, but there are also a surprising amount of people who anthropomorphize and sexualize aircraft...they are tagging them specifically because they are so passionate about them.

You say "Passionate," I say weird, lol. I wouldn't call a furry "passionate" about animals by default.

So are we not allowed to tag something unless it's fetishized now? Is that the standard that needs to be set? Disagree.

(friends, please don't assume everyone who likes planes on this site wants to stick their dick in one)

Approved OP.

Dyrone said:
I mean, yeah, but there are also a surprising amount of people who anthropomorphize and sexualize aircraft...they are tagging them specifically because they are so passionate about them.

Whereas swords are usually just props. items that indicate "oh, this person is a warrior"...done. Like JAKXXX3 said the average artist probably doesn't know enough about swords to be consciously drawing a specific sword. In fact I'm sure a Blacksmith would look at their work and say "what the hell is that? That's so impractical I can't even classify it."

Certain tags for very distinct swords should stay, like scimitar, but things like greatsword or bastard sword? Those probably lie outside the realm of common knowledge and are a bit too arcane to worry about.

I think it should boil down to just sword for most swords and huge_sword for impractically over-sized blades like the buster sword. no small, no medium, it's just a sword and if it gets too small it becomes a dagger. Easy.

So what if someone is searching by a specific type? What if they specifically want a rapier, for instance? Nope. Gotta search by sword and search through the ones that definitely do not have that.

kamimatsu said:
So what if someone is searching by a specific type? What if they specifically want a rapier, for instance?

As far as I can tell, nobody wanted to alias away all sword types. Just the generic ones of varying length. Longsword, shortsword, etc.

Whereas rapier and such are easy to recognize, and easy to tag.

Knotty_Curls said:
Approved OP.

In that case, someone's going to have to clean it up. Because most of the swords tagged as such are not actually broadswords. In particular, there's a whole lot of falchions and cleaver swords (which are mostly from anime).

Genjar said:
In that case, someone's going to have to clean it up. Because most of the swords tagged as such are not actually broadswords.

This is my point from earlier...people don't know enough about swords to be trusted to tag them correctly. The easy ones, like rapier, sure...they can tag that...but broadsword? No. I mean they probably just look at a sword and say "hey, that's a broad sword...that must be a broadsword!" Nope.

The term "broadsword" is problematic as demonstrated by this YouTube video

That dude knows his weapons, and he even has trouble describing what exactly a broadsword is, and his ultimate advice is to not even use the term, which is why we should just alias broadsword -> sword.

Dyrone said:
The term "broadsword" is problematic as demonstrated by this YouTube video

That dude knows his weapons, and he even has trouble describing what exactly a broadsword is, and his ultimate advice is to not even use the term, which is why we should just alias broadsword -> sword.

I knew that was Skallagrim before I even clicked it! That guy's great, I've learned pretty much everything I know about historical weapons from his videos.