Donmai

[REJECTED] Tag un-imply: energy_gun -> weapon / Tag imply: energy_gun -> gun

Posted under Tags

Danielx21

BUR #2057 has been rejected.

remove implication energy_gun -> weapon
create implication energy_gun -> gun

Reason: It seems reasonable to state that an energy gun is a kind of gun.

To be fair, we could try to keep gun and energy gun separate, using the former for projectile guns only, but in my opinion that's not worth the trouble.

More than half of the posts with energy gun also have the tag gun, which may suggest that other people also think of energy guns as guns, for tagging purposes.

Search count:

Obviously, if this BUR is accepted, all affected posts will still be tagged weapon, because gun implies weapon.

Here's an old discussion more or less related to this, which involves different ways to define "gun" for tagging purposes: topic #5533 (from 2011).

EDIT: This bulk update request is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

EDIT: This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 60 days.

EDIT: The bulk update request #2057 (forum #158269) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

Updated by DanbooruBot

Reply
BrokenEagle98 Zupi
Danielx21

iridescent_slime said:

I'm a bit suspicious of why energy_gun implicates weapon in the first place. Weapon is specifically intended for handheld weapons, but directed-energy weapons come in all sizes, including the energy-based equivalent of naval artillery (post #1711557). This is the same reason gatling_gun doesn't implicate anything either.

That's a good point. Still, the vast majority of gatling_gun posts are tagged gun and weapon anyway, even without any implications.

Search count:

In my opinion, the tag weapon should be for all weapons. In practice it already has lots of energy gun and gatling gun posts, and I think that's the natural use of the English word "weapon".

If we really wanted a tag for handheld weapons only, it would be an immense work to clean up weapon, and most certainly new posts with other weapons would still be tagged weapon in the future.

Reply
iridescent slime

Danielx21 said:

Still, the vast majority of gatling_gun posts are tagged gun and weapon anyway, even without any implications.

Gatling_gun used to implicate gun. Most of the posts tagged gatling_gun gun are just leftovers from when that implication was deleted (topic #14607). Removing the implication didn't remove the implicated tag from anything.

In my opinion, the tag weapon should be for all weapons. In practice it already has lots of energy gun and gatling gun posts, and I think that's the natural use of the English word "weapon".

You're probably not the first person to feel this way; at the time of topic #12420, the brief definition of weapon was used to argue for the tag's usage for everything from railguns to torpedoes. Weapon was, in fact, getting too vague to be useful, hence the narrower definition we have today.

In hindsight, it probably should have just been purged (like the similarly vague vehicle tag) and replaced with a handheld_weapon tag or the like, to take the ambiguity out of the equation.

Reply
Danielx21

iridescent_slime said:

In hindsight, it probably should have just been purged (like the similarly vague vehicle tag) and replaced with a handheld_weapon tag or the like, to take the ambiguity out of the equation.

I like the idea of purging weapon and replacing it with handheld_weapon or the like.

We might want to use cold_weapon (weapons that don't use fire or explosives).

Either handheld_weapon or cold_weapon can be populated by implying current weapon tags like sword, club, etc.

Reply
BrokenEagle98

Getting back to energy gun, why not restrict the definition to only handheld weapons only?

An Energy Gun is a directed-energy handheld gun that emits energy in an aimed direction without the means of a projectile.

It is a weapon that transfers energy to a target for a desired effect.

Then the above BUR would be good. Then just fix any mistags which are not handheld weapons and tag them with the Energy Cannon tag.

Reply
Danielx21

Arcana55 said:

Probably would want to use melee_weapon as opposed to cold_weapon. Can't say I've ever read the phrase "cold weapon" before, and I had to stare at it a bit until I figured out what you meant.

OK, melee_weapon looks good to me.

BrokenEagle98 said:

Getting back to energy gun, why not restrict the definition to only handheld weapons only?

I'm not sure. That seems doable if people want, but I'm generally not a big fan of restricting tags like this. In normal English usage, apparently there are various kinds of guns and energy guns -- not only the portable ones, but also the big ones attached to vehicles.

I'm also not a big fan of having the tag weapon only for portable weapons.

----

I suggest doing this as discussed above:

1. Nuking weapon for similar reasons as the already nuked vehicle.

Reason A: Because if we allow all kinds of weapons to be tagged weapon, portable or otherwise, then the tag will be too generic. Even if we allow it for portable weapons only, it's still arguably too generic.

Reason B: Because if we only allow portable weapons, the name will be inaccurate compared to actual English usage, and also prone to mistagging as people often use this tag for non-portable weapons in spite of that rule.

Reason C: It's one thing to make weapon only for portable weapons, but then this potentially affects all tags that imply it. This arguably causes the need for all these kinds of tags to be for portable weapons as well: gun, energy gun (post #1711557), gatling gun (post #1391578), minigun (post #2453914), etc. All these tags are less generic than "weapon", so if anything they have less reasons to have their definitions restricted. (past discussion: topic #14607)

2. Freely using gun, energy gun, gatling gun, minigun, etc. for all kinds of applicable guns (including portable guns and vehicle guns).

3. Using one or more tags for certain kinds of weapon groupings, like maybe melee_weapon for swords, clubs and others.

Reply
1