Danbooru

Alias rifle_on_back -> rifle

Posted under Tags

This topic has been locked.

Is there a particular reason the tag is specifically for rifles? I wouldn't think there would be that much of a visual difference between having a rifle strapped to the back and having say a shotgun strapped to the back instead.

NWF_Renim said:

Is there a particular reason the tag is specifically for rifles? I wouldn't think there would be that much of a visual difference between having a rifle strapped to the back and having say a shotgun strapped to the back instead.

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.

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.

Agreed.

That alias was in fact proposed four years ago but for some reason only sword_on_back got aliased. Might as well do the same for rifles. If not for consistency's sake, then because as already stated, the tag unnecessarily excludes long guns that aren't rifles.

We are constantly trying to find a balance between searchability and tag bloat. We could make tags like yellow_tail_ribbon and heavy_main_battle_tank but when all of these have all of their implication posts get a lot of superfluous tags (yellow ribbon + tail ribbonribbon) (tank: motor vehicleground vehicle + military vehiclemilitary). Makes gardening mistakes a real hassle ( ಠ ʖ̯ ಠ).

So the question is do we want rifle on back as a tag or is weapon on back + rifle enough? Regardless the implication should be approved so that all posts with rifle on back gets the rifle tag.

Talulah said:

... read the rest of this thread to find out. The handful of messages above the alias request quite blatantly lay out why.

I've read the whole thread, and no. No they don't. In no way, shape, or form, does anyone even venture to attempt, to explain it.

Talulah said:
[quotes]

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.

1 2 3 4