The bulk update request #2470 has been rejected.

remove implication lightsaber (1052) -> star_wars (5421)

Reason: Lightsabers are currently implying star_wars but other franchises feature lightsabers too.

For instance:

• beat_saber

post #1834987 post #1877755 post #2620260 post #2730515

• no_more_heroes

post #2272572 post #3155051 post #3142048

I am pretty sure there are more franchises. And Lightsabers can appear without any relations to Star Wars

EDIT: The bulk update request #2470 (forum #334457) has been rejected by @DubsTheFox.

Laser/Plasma swords, sure, but Lightsaber is trademarked. I'd recommend removing lightsaber from those posts, as those are not lightsabers.

votp said:
Laser/Plasma swords, sure, but Lightsaber is trademarked. I'd recommend removing lightsaber from those posts, as those are not lightsabers.

Will people continue to think of and use the tag "lightsaber" for those cases, using it as a generic term? If so, it may be worth disambiguating lightsaber and using lightsaber_(star_wars) instead.

watsit said:
Will people continue to think of and use the tag "lightsaber" for those cases, using it as a generic term? If so, it may be worth disambiguating lightsaber and using lightsaber_(star_wars) instead.

Considering how few posts even have the lightsaber tag? I don't think mistagging will be a huge issue.

votp said:
Laser/Plasma swords, sure, but Lightsaber is trademarked. I'd recommend removing lightsaber from those posts, as those are not lightsabers.

No More Heroes has a different looking blade, but Beat Sabers look identical to lightsabers.

I'd rather see energy_weapon adopted and cleaned up, instead of making lightsaber a generic tag.

the funniest thing about everything called a lightsaber is that it's not even sabre shaped. This is false advertisement

I'd rather keep lightsaber for the Star Wars ones and something like laser_sword, beam_sword, energy_weapon, etc. for the generic ones. There's a lot of these tags with heavy overlap so a BUR to merge them into one (or a smaller amount at least) would be good.

A lightsaber should then also be tagged with light_sword (or whatever we go with) imo

but ya pretty sure people just call those things lightsabers but it's guaranteed that's not the actual name for it because you know that's trademarked out the yingyang.

lafcadio said:
I'd rather see energy_weapon adopted and cleaned up, instead of making lightsaber a generic tag.

I like beam_sword but I think a problem is Star Wars has such a stranglehold on name-recognition.
I'd probably send lightsaber to a disambiguation feeding into lightsaber_(star_wars). Lightsaber may be a trademarked term, but the concept is too visually-replicable and this is an art site.

magnuseffect said:
I like beam_sword but I think a problem is Star Wars has such a stranglehold on name-recognition.
I'd probably send lightsaber to a disambiguation feeding into lightsaber_(star_wars). Lightsaber may be a trademarked term, but the concept is too visually-replicable and this is an art site.

that's sensible because it's still >starwars but at least with the disambiguation it can redirect people to the tags they need

magnuseffect said:
I like beam_sword...

Wikipedia would seem to agree for either beam_sword or light_sword. I think beam_sword would be more appropriate.

votp said:
...Lightsaber is trademarked...

Interesting. I didn't know that. I guess this BUR is a lost case then.

The bulk update request #2470 (forum #334457) has been rejected by @DubsTheFox.

dubsthefox said:
Interesting. I didn't know that. I guess this BUR is a lost case then.

That doesn't mean there isn't merit to disambiguating lightsaber, if enough people keep using it to mean similar non-star wars things, like plasma swords, laser swords, those things from beatsaber, etc.

dubsthefox said:
Interesting. I didn't know that. I guess this BUR is a lost case then.

Not really, you'd have to unimplicate it to then alias it to an untrademarked form--or the star-wars specific tag if people really think they can rely on people only tagging it when the artist specifies it's a star-wars lightsaber specifically.

furrin_gok said:
Not really, you'd have to unimplicate it to then alias it to an untrademarked form--or the star-wars specific tag if people really think they can rely on people only tagging it when the artist specifies it's a star-wars lightsaber specifically.

If the artist specifies it, but isn't knowable within the image, that's isn't TWYS is it?

I’d rather just manually move the non-star wars cases to a generic tag and leave lightsaber as-is. Have lightsaber imply the generic tag. The Star Wars version is by far the most recognizable, and is probably going to represent the majority of cases.

The bulk update request #2474 is pending approval.

remove implication lightsaber (1052) -> star_wars (5421)
remove alias light_sabre (0) -> lightsaber (1052)
remove alias lightsabre (0) -> lightsaber (1052)
remove alias light_saber (0) -> lightsaber (1052)
remove implication lightsaber (1052) -> melee_weapon (70188)
remove implication glistening_lightsaber (0) -> lightsaber (1052)
mass update lightsaber -> lightsaber_(star_wars)
create implication lightsaber_(star_wars) (0) -> star_wars (5421)
create implication lightsaber_(star_wars) (0) -> beam_sword (17)
create implication beam_sword (17) -> energy_sword (312)
create implication beam_katana (1) -> no_more_heroes (31)
create implication beam_katana (1) -> energy_sword (312)
create alias beat_saber (27) -> beat_saber_(game) (0)
create implication beat_saber_(weapon) (0) -> beat_saber_(game) (0)
create implication beat_saber_(weapon) (0) -> beam_sword (17)

Reason: Renewing the request, since it is at least working with a suffixed tag.
...Also what the heck are these "Glistening" tags?

scaliespe said:
I’d rather just manually move the non-star wars cases to a generic tag and leave lightsaber as-is. Have lightsaber imply the generic tag. The Star Wars version is by far the most recognizable, and is probably going to represent the majority of cases.

You can say that, but post #2730515 and post #1834987, shown up in the OP, look like Star Wars lightsabers, despite being beat sabers. At the very minimum, we can keep a Lightsaber tag, but it needs to be suffixed.

furrin_gok said:

create implication light_saber_(star_wars) -> energy_sword

I think you meant lightsaber_(star_wars) here.

scaliespe said:
I’d rather just manually move the non-star wars cases to a generic tag and leave lightsaber as-is.

The problem is if enough people are using lightsaber as a generic tag, leaving "lightsaber" alone is causing the problem that needs to be dealt with.

furrin_gok said:
...Also what the heck are these "Glistening" tags?

It's supposed to be like "reflective" or "shiny". A wet body that has light shining off it would be a glistening_body, for example. I don't really see how that would apply to a lightsaber that's emitting light, though, unless it's referring to the handle?

scaliespe said:
I think you meant lightsaber_(star_wars) here.

Whoops, thanks.

Went ahead and added a Post-BUR and swapped out Energy Sword for Beam Sword. Energy Sword includes some "physical" swords that use energy too, so I think we should use Beam Sword as an in-between to clarify swords made only of a beam of energy.

furrin_gok said:
You can say that, but post #2730515 and post #1834987, shown up in the OP, look like Star Wars lightsabers, despite being beat sabers. At the very minimum, we can keep a Lightsaber tag, but it needs to be suffixed.

watsit said:
The problem is if enough people are using lightsaber as a generic tag, leaving "lightsaber" alone is causing the problem that needs to be dealt with.

A quick scroll through lightsaber indicates that the vast majority of them are clearly Star Wars-related, and all of them that I saw on the first page are at least arguably Star Wars. I expect mistags to be very rare, personally. I think mostly everyone associates them with Star Wars over anything else. Beat sabers and no more heroes can use their own tags, I think. Promoting use of the more generic beam_sword tag (which lightsaber should imply - the fact that it doesn’t probably makes it harder for some users to know that there is a generic version of this tag in existence) may also prevent mistags.

watsit said:
It's supposed to be like "reflective" or "shiny". A wet body that has light shining off it would be a glistening_body, for example. I don't really see how that would apply to a lightsaber that's emitting light, though, unless it's referring to the handle?

I don't think the lightsaber version was ever used, if it was it's not showing up on tag change searches.
Looks like those were made in BUR #311. There are a bunch of empty tags in teh results field of that BUR.

scaliespe said:
Promoting use of the more generic beam_sword tag (which lightsaber should imply - the fact that it doesn’t probably makes it harder for some users to know that there is a generic version of this tag in existence) may also prevent mistags.

Glad we're at least in agreement there. If the disambiguation fails, that can always still be done on its own.

furrin_gok said:
Glad we're at least in agreement there. If the disambiguation fails, that can always still be done on its own.

Well, I’ll support the beam_sword implication regardless of which way this one goes, as well as implications from the Beat Sabers/No More Heroes swords. Unfortunately, I fear we’ll be waiting a while for a verdict. 😅

scaliespe said:
as well as implications from the Beat Sabers/No More Heroes swords.

Fair. I'll set up Beat Saber to alias to a game-suffixed tag (I guess since I'm giving the weapon its own tag, that bit's not needed but I'll keep it as is for now) and the weapon its own tag which will imply beam_sword. Beam_Katanas are not beam swords, as they're a physical bulb held by a staff, so that one'll imply directly to energy_sword.