deprecate military

BUR #16617 has been rejected.

deprecate military

the wiki's phrasing makes it sound like it would be better off as a pool, and i imagine someone who's looking for military stuff isn't gonna want to wade through 15k Panzer/Kancolle/GFL waifu posts

I don't see what's so abstract about military that it needs to become a pool instead.

The real issue with the tag is its two main implications - over 80% of it is just military_uniform, which is akin to implying school_uniform to school. When only one in five military posts aren't already searchable via another tag, it begs the question of what use military has in its current form.

I don't think it should be nuked/deprecated, but the military_uniform implication was definitely a mistake; someone searching for military is looking for post #6257832, not post #6261898. The military_vehicle implication is a similar mess - post #6255836 is tagged military as a result of the fighter jet in the corner, and post #2760268 because of the blurry ship in the background. Neither post has anything to do with the military, but because of an implication that assumes "all military_vehicle posts will feature a focus on the military", the tag is there anyway.

BUR #16628 has been approved by @Hillside_Moose.

remove implication military_uniform -> military
remove implication military_vehicle -> military

AngryZapdos said:

The real issue with the tag is its two main implications - over 80% of it is just military_uniform, which is akin to implying school_uniform to school. When only one in five military posts aren't already searchable via another tag, it begs the question of what use military has in its current form.

I don't think it should be nuked/deprecated, but the military_uniform implication was definitely a mistake; someone searching for military is looking for post #6257832, not post #6261898. The military_vehicle implication is a similar mess - post #6255836 is tagged military as a result of the fighter jet in the corner, and post #2760268 because of the blurry ship in the background. Neither post has anything to do with the military, but because of an implication that assumes "all military_vehicle posts will feature a focus on the military", the tag is there anyway.

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

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

The bulk update request #16617 (forum #240354) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

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

The bulk update request #16628 (forum #240398) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

The bulk update request #16628 (forum #240398) has been approved by @Hillside_Moose.

Voted meh but after few reconsideration now I am on the side of depcrecating military, even nuking military at all. For those who disagreed, I would like to explain why, despite those may seem like some rant:

• Yes, I'd consider military itself is an amorphous noun. It's more like a theme tag which seem to be reminiscent of early era of Danbooru, when there are already visually clearer tags that describe military-themed items or characters such as military hat, military jacket, military vehicle, military operator for members of special forces (in many countries it does not directly operate under the command of unified armed forces), tactical clothes for SF's combat attire, and more.
• The use of military as a tag has been overused and bastardized so much, even on other sites like Pixiv it is used to lazily describe characters with firearms and combat gear - regardless of actual allegiance. Someone wielding long gun, or even wearing camouflage attire does not make him/her automatically a military personnel at all. Just imagine a hunter wearing camo, armed with civilian-legal double-barrelled shotgun with wooden stock in the woods.
• Somehow I found it to be redundant and slightly cringing myself whenever I see "military" is applied on every character pictures that have nothing to do with realistic portrayal of the military. Some of them are moderately misused, then I tried to fix them. How is post #6108332 count as military stuff while the character look like having none to do with the armed forces? Better use tactical maid instead. post #6104238 does not indicate character's military allegiance, as such combat gear is actually available to civilians so tactical clothes should be used instead of military uniform. Another example, post #6620018 does nothing look like actual, real-world military uniform. The Viet Cong was not even armed forces, so post #5804187 should not actually be tagged military at all. Just because someone is count as combatant in wars, does not mean they serve in any military branch. The VC had no uniform actually, despite iconic attire.
• Imagine trying to seriously browse for military-themed images but what people get at glance are scantily-dressed girls with guns, who are not actually seen wearing any military uniform or insignia, or mere personifications of military vehicles.

For those who are still in favour of keeping the military tag, I consider the usage should be strictly applied for depictions of realistic-looking military uniforms just like their real world institutions, as well as indications of military activity. Such as post #6379478, post #6045223, post #6280152, post #6364936 (the character canonically serves in South Korean Army).

Regarding the use of military uniform itself, I think there should be slight revision regarding how it should be accurately use (only the two bullet points):

• The uniform should at least look very similar to realistic counterparts. I will be OK if this (post #6239796) remain tagged as such, due to its peculiar resemblance to the SS.
• It should not be used for any military-styled outfit that is unique of each characters. Use military jacket, military hat, beret or subtags that describe individual components of a military uniform, especially if they are topless or bottomless. There's nothing resembling actual military uniforms on post #6115984, it should be only military jacket instead. Also on post #351657.
• The character herself is bottomless, so I think military uniform should not apply on post #4629380, implying that the full set of the uniform is not complete, only the jacket and hat.
• Tagging military on every posts depicting characters in military-style outfit is like haphazardly putting Catholic or Christianity to any images only depicting nuns or mere exterior/interior of a church.

With the presence of clearer military-related tags with additional qualifier, I consider military to be a vague and overused padding tag, a subject to be rendered obsolete.
I hope the administrations team will reconsider the first autorejected BUR, best regards. Edited for bump.

BUR #30037 has been rejected.

remove implication japan_self-defense_force -> military
deprecate military

Sorry for bringing this controversial topic up again, but it is done for another reconsideration. I have tried to explain in an amateurly-written lengthy paragraph above, why the idea of deprecating military should've succeed and why Pokeball99's point is somehow reasonable. Military itself has been haphazardly misused in such disgraceful way, especially on obscene posts. The presence of various military_* tags which users can search instead for better results shall render military completely obsolete.

Regarding the implication removal, it's based on the previous topic #25179. We did not imply every single tags about real life armed forces either.
I would like to ask you once again. For instance, does Bundeswehr even imply military as well??

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

The bulk update request #30037 (forum #298531) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

To those who disagreed with the recent BUR despite the reasoning stated above, it's time to realize that the tag military has been overused often in misleading and infuriatingly disrespectful manner. To the point its usage cannot be easily fixed by few builders. "Military" has been abused, even by more experienced users. These illustrations are some prime examples:

• post #8165118 - Tight-fitting outfit that shows wearer's back does not logically appear to be military uniform.
• post #8149151 - Completely naked but still tagged military? Just because there's a weapon crate and a rifle. SMH.
• post #8140117 - Generic hentai on a character wearing pseudo-military-inspired costume is not what most people expect while searching for military-related images.
• post #8108798 - No, bodysuit does not resemble any form of practical military uniform.
• post #8232590 - Still no. Sole presence of firearms and protective gear does not make something/someone "military". The tag itself on Pixiv has been used as misleading term for everything similar to such.

Repeating the same point as previous replies. To the admins, I suggest it's time to retire and render military obsolete, as we already have better and clearer military_* for related objects and attire. I'd happily let them to decide and reconsider.