Alias rifle_on_back -> rifle

zarlan said:

You cite a claim, and a BUR…
Nowhere in that, is there anything that comes close to any kind of an explanation.
Also, I just told you, that I've read everything in the thread, so…
Citing something that obviously didn't explain things, is hardly going to help to explain.

Weapon_on_back sword works just fine for finding swords being worn on the back. Continuing from that point, Weapon_on_back rifle returns 368 results, while weapon_on_back rifle sword only returns 25, meaning the only thing working against doing things this way, the possibility of weapon_on_back rifle returning posts of someone holding a rifle while wearing a sword (the most common melee weapon), is shockingly low, simply because characters aren't commonly drawn with both a sword, or other melee weapon, and a rifle at the same time.

Also, to correct something,

zarlan said:

After all, why should images with sword on back, be tagged as rifle on back?

That isn't what would happen. Swords and guns would both be tagged with weapon on back, we're obviously not going to tag swords as guns and vice-versa. The intent is to just use weapon on back + the weapon you're looking for, instead of needing to create and maintain individual "*_on_back" tags for every single type of weapon that exists.

This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 45 days.

The bulk update request #10764 (forum #214717) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

That isn't what would happen. Swords and guns would both be tagged with weapon on back, we're obviously not going to tag swords as guns and vice-versa. The intent is to just use weapon on back + the weapon you're looking for, instead of needing to create and maintain individual "*_on_back" tags for every single type of weapon that exists.

Sword on back being aliased as weapon on back means that sword on back=weapon on back (they would simply be two names, for the same tag) …and if rifle on back is also aliased as weapon on back, that would make rifle on back=weapon on back …which means that sword on back=rifle on back.
Technically, both are simply tagged with weapon on back, of course, but that's beside the point
…or are you saying that there should only be weapon on back, and that any tagging for sword or rifle on back, be converted to being weapon on back instead, through use of alias?

zarlan said:

…which means that sword on back=rifle on back.

Where did this come from?

Both swords and rifles are weapons, aren't they? Vigil already explained what would happen if both are aliased away:

blindVigil said:

Swords and guns would both be tagged with weapon on back, we're obviously not going to tag swords as guns and vice-versa.

zarlan said:

Sword on back being aliased as weapon on back means that sword on back=weapon on back (they would simply be two names, for the same tag) …and if rifle on back is also aliased as weapon on back, that would make rifle on back=weapon on back …which means that sword on back=rifle on back.

No, that is not what that means. That's not how words work. Apples are fruit. Oranges are fruit. Apples are not oranges.

Technically, both are simply tagged with weapon on back, of course, but that's beside the point
…or are you saying that there should only be weapon on back, and that any tagging for sword or rifle on back, be converted to being weapon on back instead, through use of alias?

I'll be honest, I'm not entirely convinced you've actually been reading anything said in this thread. Not only is that exactly what I'm saying, it's exactly what everyone has been saying in this thread and in the thread linked here.

Sword on back is already aliased. We already tag swords with weapon on back. Because if we have sword on back and rifle on back, then we also need hammer on back and spear on back and halberd on back and similar tags for every single weapon type that you can find on this site. We don't want that, it's needlessly complicated, and would result in possibly dozens of tags, some of which may not even break double digits. The only reason to do that is to avoid issues like I described in my previous reply, but as I also explained there, searching weapon on back + the weapon you're looking for works just fine. It's not perfect, but few searches are.

MegaFlare said:

Where did this come from?

Basic logic.

Both swords and rifles are weapons, aren't they? Vigil already explained what would happen if both are aliased away:

That statement doesn't mention aliases, nor does it appear to have anything to do with the aliasing, in any way…

blindVigil said:

No, that is not what that means. That's not how words work. Apples are fruit. Oranges are fruit. Apples are not oranges.

It IS how aliases work.
If you alias apples to fruit, and oranges to fruit, then apples=oranges.

I'll be honest, I'm not entirely convinced you've actually been reading anything said in this thread. Not only is that exactly what I'm saying, it's exactly what everyone has been saying in this thread and in the thread linked here.

Oh? Please point me to any statement, in this thread, where anyone says anything, that even remotely states that, outside of the question in my comment.
…but before you do so, please note and keep in mind, that I am not a mindreader and cannot know things that are unstated and implied. Only that which is actually said.
Again: No one has stated any explanation or clarification of this. (and this includes your recent posts)

As for the linked thread…
I went through it now, since you said it explained the issue
…and it's even less clear about this point, than this thread.

but as I also explained there, searching weapon on back + the weapon you're looking for works just fine.

Without further clarification, that would appear to be a separate point, about the related tags

zarlan said:

It IS how aliases work.
If you alias apples to fruit, and oranges to fruit, then apples=oranges.

No, because words aren't numbers and you can't apply numeral logic to words.
Like he already said: apples are fruit, oranges are fruit, but apples are not oranges.

Going from there, a sword is a weapon, a rifle is a weapon, but a rifle isn't a sword - so just because both of them are tagged weapon_on_back instead of a specific sword_on_back or rifle_on_back tag, doesn't mean we're tagging swords as rifles and vice versa. You've literally said yourself what would happen and yet you still argue obscure points that make no real sense.

zarlan said:

…or are you saying that there should only be weapon on back, and that any tagging for sword or rifle on back, be converted to being weapon on back instead, through use of alias?

This is literally what would happen yes, as has already been explained several times. Which means we're not tagging swords as rifles or vice versa. We're tagging swords as swords, rifles as rifles, and any kind of weapon worn on the back as weapon_on_back. Which means a rifle worn on the back would be tagged rifle weapon_on_back, and a sword worn on the back would be tagged sword weapon_on_back. Please explain to me how exactly that means we're tagging rifles as swords.

zarlan said:

Oh? Please point me to any statement, in this thread, where anyone says anything, that even remotely states that, outside of the question in my comment.
…but before you do so, please note and keep in mind, that I am not a mindreader and cannot know things that are unstated and implied. Only that which is actually said.
Again: No one has stated any explanation or clarification of this. (and this includes your recent posts)

Fortunately, you don't need to read minds, just plain English text, because it was said right here at the very beginning of the thread and again here:

Zumzigzoo said:

The tag should probably be handled the same way sword_on_back is, which is aliased to weapon_on_back, then tagged with the specific weapon.

And a third time by me here:

blindVigil said:

That isn't what would happen. Swords and guns would both be tagged with weapon on back, we're obviously not going to tag swords as guns and vice-versa. The intent is to just use weapon on back + the weapon you're looking for, instead of needing to create and maintain individual "*_on_back" tags for every single type of weapon that exists.

Do you just not understand how aliases work?

zarlan said:

Basic logic.

That's literally not how it works. That's not how ANY of what you said works.

Swords and rifles are weapons, but they're definitely not each other.

Same like Astolfo said above, apples and oranges are fruits, but again, not each other.

Astolfo said:

No, because words aren't numbers and you can't apply numeral logic to words.

Tags work according to math. (and not figuratively speaking, either. 100% literally)
Aliases mean that all the words, refer to the same tag.
In other words: sword on back and rifle on back, are treated as exactly identical. (if both are aliased to weapon on back)

Like he already said: apples are fruit, oranges are fruit, but apples are not oranges.

If you were talking about implications, that would make sense …but it's aliases we're talking about, so…

You've literally said yourself what would happen

Yes. That sword on back, would be treated as identical to rifle on back.
The fact that neither would be tagged as sword/rifle on back, but rather weapon on back, doesn't negate that.

and yet you still argue obscure points that make no real sense.

I try to make myself clear. (and am perfectly willing to answer any questions, and clarify any point that is still unclear)
I would appreciate it, if people would return the favour.
Which no one did …while claiming that they did.

This is literally what would happen yes, as has already been explained several times. Which means we're not tagging swords as rifles or vice versa. We're tagging swords as swords, rifles as rifles, and any kind of weapon worn on the back as weapon_on_back.

Now see, THAT is an explanation!
Of course, it's no longer necessary, but it's the first (my question aside) that anyone has given one. The claim that it was ever explained before, is baffling and upsetting.

blindVigil said:

Fortunately, you don't need to read minds, just plain English text

You cite posts that say what should be done. Not why, nor what those actions would mean.
Again: They don't even venture, to attempt to try, to explain or clarify anything.
Again again: You cannot clarify/explain something, by repeating something that has utterly failed to do so before.

MegaFlare said:
That's literally not how it works. That's not how ANY of what you said works.

…you say, without explaining how/why, that isn't how it works. (as for the apples and oranges comment, see my reply to Astolfo)

zarlan said:

Now see, THAT is an explanation!
Of course, it's no longer necessary, but it's the first (my question aside) that anyone has given one. The claim that it was ever explained before, is baffling and upsetting.

It was already mentioned several times before I did, the first of which is the third response in the thread, and explained about as clearly as I did by blindVigil once again.

Zumzigzoo said:

The tag should probably be handled the same way sword_on_back is, which is aliased to weapon_on_back, then tagged with the specific weapon.

blindVigil said:

That isn't what would happen. Swords and guns would both be tagged with weapon on back, we're obviously not going to tag swords as guns and vice-versa. The intent is to just use weapon on back + the weapon you're looking for, instead of needing to create and maintain individual "*_on_back" tags for every single type of weapon that exists.

Bolded for your convenience is exactly the same thing I explained in different words. Individual weapon types are still tagged individual weapon types. They just don't have a specific *_on_back tag pertaining to themselves and instead any kind of weapon worn on the back is weapon_on_back. If a guy has a rifle on his back, it'll be weapon_on_back rifle. If a guy has a scythe on his back, it'll be weapon_on_back scythe. At no point in this process are we tagging rifles as swords, or apples as oranges.

zarlan said:

Tags work according to math. (and not figuratively speaking, either. 100% literally)
Aliases mean that all the words, refer to the same tag.
In other words: sword on back and rifle on back, are treated as exactly identical. (if both are aliased to weapon on back)

This is useless, and not even accurate, semantics. If sword on back and rifle on back are both aliased to weapon on back, it means they are both WEAPONS worn on the back. It does not mean that swords and rifles are the same thing, we still have sword and rifle to clarify that distinction. If we wanted to keep them as separate tags, they would of course be implications; they're preferred as aliases instead because we don't need them to be separate tags to do their jobs, which is to find WEAPONS worn on backs.

Now see, THAT is an explanation!
Of course, it's no longer necessary, but it's the first (my question aside) that anyone has given one. The claim that it was ever explained before, is baffling and upsetting.

zarlan said:

You cite posts that say what should be done. Not why, nor what those actions would mean.
Again: They don't even venture, to attempt to try, to explain or clarify anything.
Again again: You cannot clarify/explain something, by repeating something that has utterly failed to do so before.

I fail to see how these two paragraphs of mine:

blindVigil said:

That isn't what would happen. Swords and guns would both be tagged with weapon on back, we're obviously not going to tag swords as guns and vice-versa. The intent is to just use weapon on back + the weapon you're looking for, instead of needing to create and maintain individual "*_on_back" tags for every single type of weapon that exists.

blindVigil said:

Sword on back is already aliased. We already tag swords with weapon on back. Because if we have sword on back and rifle on back, then we also need hammer on back and spear on back and halberd on back and similar tags for every single weapon type that you can find on this site. We don't want that, it's needlessly complicated, and would result in possibly dozens of tags, some of which may not even break double digits. The only reason to do that is to avoid issues like I described in my previous reply, but as I also explained there, searching weapon on back + the weapon you're looking for works just fine. It's not perfect, but few searches are.

Are any less suitable as explanations than the one from Astolfo that you've decided is the explanation you've been asking for this whole time, despite saying exactly what's already been said. I not only explained how it would work, but also why we want to do it this way.

Astolfo said:

It was already mentioned several times before I did, the first of which is the third response in the thread, and explained about as clearly as I did by blindVigil once again.

No. At no point, ever. Nothing that came anywhere close, to doing so.
At all.
In any way, shape, or form.
Indeed, many were not even any more than a mere repeating of what had already been said, which clearly doesn't help anyone and is completely non-constructive.
("When we see that someone is confused, by something we've said, we instinctively try to rectify the situation. We enquire about what's confusing them. We rephrase. We offer explanations." - someone very naive, to think that this is how people actually act. How they should act, [how I act, certainly] but…)

Neither of the posts you cite, did so.
blindVigil's that you cite, mentions an intent, but doesn't explain how the aliasing would accomplish (or in any other way, would be related to) this.

Granted, it did start to make me suspect what he meant, but… it did not actually explain or clarify it. It was better than anything before your post, sure, but that says more about what came before it, than the post itself.

At no point in this process are we tagging rifles as swords, or apples as oranges.

…
Sure, given the explanation, that claim is perfectly sensible.
Without it, however…

blindVigil said:

This is useless, and not even accurate, semantics. If sword on back and rifle on back are both aliased to weapon on back, it means they are both WEAPONS worn on the back.

That sounds sensible, if you were talking about implications.
Given we're talking about aliases, however, that doesn't make any sense.
An alias, means that the alias IS the tag. That it is just a different name, describing the exact same thing.
…and given that, my semantics is perfectly accurate.
As I've pointed out: If sword on back=weapon on back, and rifle on back=weapon on back, then sword on back=rifle on back.

What you're proposing, with the alias (and doing, with the sword on back alias), is to use the system in an unintended way. It accomplishes a goal, by using a tool (aliasing) for a different use, than that for which it was intended.
That is, of course, perfectly fine and valid. Good even. (well, it depends on how/what, but in this case it's good and sensible)
…but it does need to be explained.
People are not mindreaders, after all.

I fail to see how these two paragraphs of mine:

Are any less suitable as explanations than the one from Astolfo that you've decided is the explanation you've been asking for this whole time

…
How/why do you think so? Could you possibly think so?

despite saying exactly what's already been said.

Eh…
No.
If you think his post did not say anything beyond what had already been said, then you really need to go back and re-read it, and compare it to the previous posts.

I not only explained how it would work, but also why we want to do it this way.

…but in no way, shape, or form, did you explain how the aliasing, leads to that supposed "how".
How the "how" you spoke of, and the proposed aliasing, are in any way connected or related.
You did not explain, how that "how" would actually be true. How it would actually work, within the tag-system.
You claimed that, that would be how it works, but you did not back up that claim.
…and if someone cannot back up or explain their claim, that tends to imply that they cannot, that they don't understand it themselves, and/or that they know that they are wrong. I would think that this is an implication, you would wish to avoid.

I could say, for example, that if you alias fruit to rifle, then that will mean that posts that have catgirls with freckles, would be searchable by searching for "catgirl freckles".
…and I could say, that this explains how it would work. I could say so, with exactly as much justification, as you say that your posts explained the "how" of the rifle on back alias.

…but would you accept that, as being an explanation?
Of course not!
It makes no sense!
It makes no connection between the proposed aliasing, and how that would lead to things working, in the way I would be claiming!
…and I do not accept your posts, as explanations, for the exact same reason.

While most aliases *are* just alternative names for one concept (like boobs -> breasts, or kissing_object -> object_kiss), not all are. Some also "lump" similar smaller categories together, if they are determined to be too granular or too small to warrant their own tag.

An example would be brown footwear - its aliases are: brown_boots and brown_shoes. Nobody says that all shoes are boots or anything like that - but both shoes and boots are types of footwear, so they get the same tag.

Another example, rats and mouses. While obviously rats are taxonomically different animals from mouses, due to their similarity in most stylized artworks, "rat" is currently an alias for "mouse". Different animals, shared tag.

I feel like you just don't understand aliases/implications/the tagging system in general and you're just really stuck up on the fact that an alias absolutely must mean the tags are 1-to-1 synonyms to one another and that as a result rifle = sword, whereas in many cases aliases are simply used to lump overly specific tags together into a wider group/concept while also re-tagging all pictures currently tagged with such and redirecting users when they search it. Such as, for example... tagging all weapons as weapon_on_back instead of having a specific x_on_back tag for every type of weapon that exists, and redirecting all posts/searches from sword_on_back to weapon_on_back.

And since you like fruits, just because holding_apple and holding_peach are aliased to holding_fruit doesn't mean that peaches are apples, apples are peaches and all fruits in existence are peaches or apples - it means we don't CARE enough to tag SPECIFICALLY pictures where people are holding an apple or a peach or any other specific type of fruit, and instead we tag all pictures of someone holding whatever fruit as holding_fruit to avoid having 800 holding_specific_type_of_fruit tags.