Posted under Tags
For both tags, I'd say they fit under the definition of weapon on the wiki, which is a tool meant to kill a person. I guess torpedo doesn't do that directly, but I'd argue it still fits.
Regarding the ammunition bit, that makes sense considering that bullets is not listed as a weapon. However, torpedo and bullets are different in that bullets are usually tagged with gun so they fit under weapon anyways, while torpedos aren't yet still fit under the definition of a tool meant to kill someone. I hope this makes sense.
Regarding the implication of cannon to artillery, that could work, though even the artillery's wiki describes them as weapons.
Blue_Stuff said:
Regarding the ammunition bit, that makes sense considering that bullets is not listed as a weapon. However, torpedo and bullets are different in that bullets are usually tagged with gun so they fit under weapon anyways, while torpedos aren't yet still fit under the definition of a tool meant to kill someone. I hope this makes sense.
A gun is tagged gun, bullets are tagged bullet. That tag does not implicate the weapon tag either, and images where no gun is present will (or should not) be tagged weapon. Example: post #575801
In its current form the weapon tag is really only for things that are melee weapons and, going by wikipedia, what appeared to be labeled as small arms and light weapons. Fitting larger weapons under it would make the tag more unwieldy and would start adding noise to the current scope of what the tag covers. Of course it is possible to include such things under the weapons tag, but then we'd need to create sub-weapon tags to help sort the tag better. Either way though, things like torpedo and cannon would never then directly implicate the weapon tag.
NWF_Renim said:
A gun is tagged gun, bullets are tagged bullet. That tag does not implicate the weapon tag either, and images where no gun is present will (or should not) be tagged weapon. Example: post #575801
In its current form the weapon tag is really only for things that are melee weapons and, going by wikipedia, what appeared to be labeled as small arms and light weapons. Fitting larger weapons under it would make the tag more unwieldy and would start adding noise to the current scope of what the tag covers. Of course it is possible to include such things under the weapons tag, but then we'd need to create sub-weapon tags to help sort the tag better. Either way though, things like torpedo and cannon would never then directly implicate the weapon tag.
Ok then, that makes sense.
NWF_Renim said:
In its current form the weapon tag is really only for things that are melee weapons and, going by wikipedia, what appeared to be labeled as small arms and light weapons. Fitting larger weapons under it would make the tag more unwieldy and would start adding noise to the current scope of what the tag covers. Of course it is possible to include such things under the weapons tag, but then we'd need to create sub-weapon tags to help sort the tag better. Either way though, things like torpedo and cannon would never then directly implicate the weapon tag.
If weapon is limited to personal weaponry, should railgun and missile pod no longer implicate it? These tend to be the province of military vehicles and mecha. Handheld versions can still be tagged weapon by hand as is we do now with shipgirls wielding cannons.
iridescent_slime said:
If weapon is limited to personal weaponry, should railgun and missile pod no longer implicate it? These tend to be the province of military vehicles and mecha. Handheld versions can still be tagged weapon by hand as is we do now with shipgirls wielding cannons.
Unless we expand the weapon tag, then yes those two shouldn't implicate the weapon tag for the reasons you stated. Handheld versions can manually be tagged weapon as you suggest.
remove implication railgun -> weapon
remove implication missile_pod -> weapon
