Something I noticed on Red Shetland images in particular.
Also,
Implication: Barrett_M82 -> sniper_rifle -> rifle
That goes for other specific models, such as the Dragunov, as well.

DSR1337 said:
Something I noticed on Red Shetland images in particular.
Also,
Implication: Barrett_M82 -> sniper_rifle -> rifle
That goes for other specific models, such as the Dragunov, as well.

Specific models of weaponry are to be removed and replaced with the generic. Please also inform the uploader of that policy. Search the forums for further information regarding that, if you wish.

123easy said:
Specific models of weaponry are to be removed and replaced with the generic. Please also inform the uploader of that policy. Search the forums for further information regarding that, if you wish.

1. Thanks, but could you give me a link?
2. Replaced with, as opposed to including? How is that more helpful?

... Really? too lazy to search the forums? :/ "Gun tags", as generic a search as it could get for searching for gun tags, got it for me right away. https://e621.net/forum/show/29136

Replaced with because there just isn't enough art with weaponry to warrant unique tags for them. We want to tag it a rifle so that way people who want to see if we have images with rifles in them can find them, but we aren't going to service a search for the one-two images that happen to feature a Mauser pistol specifically, for example. AS Kl0hound once said, quite well in fact,

KloH0und said:
Get as close as you can with a search without excluding possibly desirable results, then rifle through the individual posts to find what you want.

The tag system is just a tool, and like any tool it has its limitations. You still have to do certain things yourself.

123easy said:
... Really? too lazy to search the forums? :/ "Gun tags", as generic a search as it could get for searching for gun tags, got it for me right away. https://e621.net/forum/show/29136

Replaced with because there just isn't enough art with weaponry to warrant unique tags for them. We want to tag it a rifle so that way people who want to see if we have images with rifles in them can find them, but we aren't going to service a search for the one-two images that happen to feature a Mauser pistol specifically, for example. AS Kl0hound once said, quite well in fact,

Rifle, how utterly fitting.

parasprite said:
Rifle, how utterly fitting.

DSR1337 said:
Also,
Implication: Barrett_M82 -> sniper_rifle -> rifle
That goes for other specific models, such as the Dragunov, as well.

Yes, fitting, given the post.

123easy said:
... Really? too lazy to search the forums? :/ "Gun tags", as generic a search as it could get for searching for gun tags, got it for me right away. https://e621.net/forum/show/29136

There are several threads that discuss tags of this sort--I thought you were referring to a specific discussion, and I didn't know which thread you meant. Sorry for not clarifying that. Obviously I agree with Kl0hound much more than with your posts on that thread.

Before I make this implication, do we really need both impractical and unconvincing armor?

I also want to make the definition of unconvincing armor better (to exclude armor that is complete but might not technically offer protection, versus skimpy armor)

Hmm. I was going to give examples for how they could be separated, but honestly? They seem like they're being used for the exact same concept, that of skimpy armor that looks impractical and won't actually help defend you much, like armored bikinis and armor pasties and similar.

For armor that is complete but does not offer protection... like, cardboard armor? That sounds more like something that would be under impractical. But are there even any images to support that usage?

123easy said:
Hmm. I was going to give examples for how they could be separated, but honestly? They seem like they're being used for the exact same concept, that of skimpy armor that looks impractical and won't actually help defend you much, like armored bikinis and armor pasties and similar.

For armor that is complete but does not offer protection... like, cardboard armor? That sounds more like something that would be under impractical. But are there even any images to support that usage?

That was my exact thought, was one would be impractical like bulletproof socks, and the other was unconvincing, meaning it is full and cover them, but yes it's made of cardboard, but do we really need both? They are kinda interchangeable terms anyway

Rainbow_Dash said:
That was my exact thought, was one would be impractical like bulletproof socks, and the other was unconvincing, meaning it is full and cover them, but yes it's made of cardboard, but do we really need both? They are kinda interchangeable terms anyway

Not really; if we had images to support the separation, I could see a reason to do so, but as they either don't exist or do but are in such limited quantities, I don't see a need to separate them, given they are being used interchangably.

123easy said:
Hmm. I was going to give examples for how they could be separated, but honestly? They seem like they're being used for the exact same concept, that of skimpy armor that looks impractical and won't actually help defend you much, like armored bikinis and armor pasties and similar.

For armor that is complete but does not offer protection... like, cardboard armor? That sounds more like something that would be under impractical. But are there even any images to support that usage?

Rainbow_Dash said:
That was my exact thought, was one would be impractical like bulletproof socks, and the other was unconvincing, meaning it is full and cover them, but yes it's made of cardboard, but do we really need both? They are kinda interchangeable terms anyway

I propose we don't overthink and worry about it. Unless we make one an alias of another, getting rid of one altogether doesn't help searching.

DSR1337 said:
I propose we don't overthink and worry about it. Unless we make one an alias of another, getting rid of one altogether doesn't help searching.

That's what the discussion has turned to, yes. Whether they even deserve to be separate tags.

Rainbow_Dash said:
That was my exact thought, was one would be impractical like bulletproof socks, and the other was unconvincing, meaning it is full and cover them, but yes it's made of cardboard, but do we really need both? They are kinda interchangeable terms anyway

I think it boils down to the difference between a kevlar or chainmail bikini and a full-body cardboard suit.

123easy said:
That's what the discussion has turned to, yes. Whether they even deserve to be separate tags.

It sounds like the answer is "yes" if we can find good examples where one applies and not the other. I'm not sure which of these or these would specifically be considered a good example, but at least we have a place to start.
I didn't even intend to discuss this when I created the thread, because I don't agree with merging them. It would be fixing a nonproblem. Whenever I bring something up, it provokes admins to make decisions I disagree with. The rules are flawed enough as-is. Next time, I should just edit in a way that makes the most logical sense to me and not bring it up on forums unless it's something like japanese_text vs japanese, the outcome of which doesn't matter to me either way.
So, back on topic, can we all at least agree that they should both imply armor?

Also, are they enough images to warrant separating them?

I'd be in favor of keeping both if they are useful, so can anyone tell me if they are useful or not?

Rainbow_Dash said:
Also, are they enough images to warrant separating them?

I'd be in favor of keeping both if they are useful, so can anyone tell me if they are useful or not?

there's a sparse handful of them mistagged as the other in one, and the other doesn't seem to hold any of the former, so I don't think they are. This is just an off the top of my head glancing at them rather than an indepth look.

I think for our purposes the difference won't help in tagging, o I'm going to go ahead an alias them tomorrow if no one objects