Posted under Tags
BUR #14360 has been approved by @nonamethanks.
mass update tank_focus -tank -> tank
create alias tank_focus -> vehicle_focus
For some reason this is the only more specific x_focus tag. Probably isn't necessary, unless we also want to make cat_focus and such.
BUR #14361 has been rejected.
mass update tank -> tank armored_vehicle
Talulah said:
For some reason this is the only more specific x_focus tag. Probably isn't necessary, unless we also want to make cat_focus and such.
1+! One more tank-related request from me, if this should be OK. Armored vehicle refers a broad term for combat vehicles of all kind, and tanks are one of them! This includes humvees, APCs and more as well.
Talulah said:
If that's the case it would be better suited as an implication otherwise it'll not apply to future posts. I'm not sure about it just because tank is a very large tag by comparison.
We all know that all tanks are armored. Sorry, but the reason is unfortunately I cannot request implication tank -> armored_vehicle, number of posts are just too high. I felt that nobody is going to cast more votes on my requests (most likely meh or downvote) because I might be wrong or something. And that's true if I used to get so. Thanks for proving it.
Updated by Black Metal ist Krieg
World_Funeral said:
BUR #14361 has been rejected.
mass update tank -> tank armored_vehicle
1+! One more tank-related request from me, if this should be OK. Armored vehicle refers a broad term for combat vehicles of all kind, and tanks are one of them! This includes humvees, APCs and more as well.
post #5760579
This is some kind of "tank armor", at the shoulder you can see it. It shouldn't be tagged armored vehicel and if images like that shouldn't be tagged tank, you have to garden it first.
Nacha said:
post #5760579
This is some kind of "tank armor", at the shoulder you can see it. It shouldn't be tagged armored vehicel and if images like that shouldn't be tagged tank, you have to garden it first.
Tank already implicates ground vehicle (through motor vehicle) and tagging that post as ground vehicle is stupid.
Talulah said:
Tank already implicates ground vehicle (through motor vehicle) and tagging that post as ground vehicle is stupid.
I tried the best to give a seemingly logical reason for a BUR, and I am sorry if someone would disagree. Unfortunately we cannot remove those tags, don't know what to do with it. Also, post #5760579 do not have any military context at all.
Either the armored_vehicle tag needs needs to have the ground_vehicle implication removed, or it needs to explicitly not include things like battleships, because now we're getting battleships auto-tagged as ground vehicles (post #3543337). Is armored_vehicle even really a category that makes sense? Are people actually looking for all types of vehicles that could be described as "armored" all at once? Or do they tend to just search for individual things like tank, armored_personnel_carrier, battleship, etc? And yeah, tanks would absolutely dominate the category to the point of uselessness.
Nacha said:
post #5760579
This is some kind of "tank armor", at the shoulder you can see it. It shouldn't be tagged armored vehicel and if images like that shouldn't be tagged tank, you have to garden it first.
That shouldn't be tagged tank, any more than the parent should be tagged rabbit.
World_Funeral said:
I tried the best to give a seemingly logical reason for a BUR, and I am sorry if someone would disagree. Unfortunately we cannot remove those tags, don't know what to do with it. Also, post #5760579 do not have any military context at all.
I'm pretty sure it only got tagged tank because the name of the form contains tank. I don't really think it's appropriate.
DownWithTheThickness said:
Either the armored_vehicle tag needs needs to have the ground_vehicle implication removed, or it needs to explicitly not include things like battleships, because now we're getting battleships auto-tagged as ground vehicles (post #3543337). Is armored_vehicle even really a category that makes sense? Are people actually looking for all types of vehicles that could be described as "armored" all at once? Or do they tend to just search for individual things like tank, armored_personnel_carrier, battleship, etc? And yeah, tanks would absolutely dominate the category to the point of uselessness.
armored_vehicle -> ground_vehicle implication makes no sense to begin with. I think armored vehicle could make sense as a tag but the obvious issue is that 99% of armored vehicles on the site are tanks, which means an armored vehicle tag cannot include tanks which feels a bit odd.
DownWithTheThickness said:
Either the armored_vehicle tag needs needs to have the ground_vehicle implication removed, or it needs to explicitly not include things like battleships, because now we're getting battleships auto-tagged as ground vehicles (post #3543337). Is armored_vehicle even really a category that makes sense? Are people actually looking for all types of vehicles that could be described as "armored" all at once? Or do they tend to just search for individual things like tank, armored_personnel_carrier, battleship, etc? And yeah, tanks would absolutely dominate the category to the point of uselessness.
Listen here, pal. I bet people are smart enough to know what type of vehicle tanks are, and why are they so heavy]. I did not see any ground vehicle implication for battleship or warship. Useless? "Umbrella terms" are not useless at all. By this logic, armored vehicle is as useless as school uniform, when we have things like Kita high school uniform or Nijigasaki Academy school uniform
nonamethanks said:
post #5760579
That shouldn't be tagged tank, any more than the parent should be tagged rabbit.
Talulah said:
I'm pretty sure it only got tagged tank because the name of the form contains tank. I don't really think it's appropriate.
I thought we are supposed to tag every visible, noticeable things on an image.
Talulah said:
I think armored vehicle could make sense as a tag but the obvious issue is that 99% of armored vehicles on the site are tanks, which means an armored vehicle tag cannot include tanks which feels a bit odd.
Roger that, sergeant. I do agree with your point on how tank does not imply armored vehicle does not make sense at all.
Talulah said:
armored_vehicle -> ground_vehicle implication makes no sense to begin with
However, I did not mean that armored vehicle should imply ground vehicle. But what I meant is what I requested on a previous BUR, such as requesting implication for a specific type of vehicle. Like how the BTR-80 should implicate armored personnel vehicle, armored vehicle, and ground vehicle.
Updated by Black Metal ist Krieg
World_Funeral said:
I did not see any ground vehicle implication for battleship or warship.
The implication is armored_vehicle -> ground_vehicle, not battleship. It means if you're tagging a battleship as an armored vehicle it adds ground vehicle as well.
Useless? "Umbrella terms" are not useless at all. By this logic, armored vehicle is as useless as school uniform, when we have things like Kita high school uniform or Nijigasaki Academy school uniform
They aren't inherently useless. The problem arises when they have 99% overlap with another tag. If an armored_vehicle search yields exactly the same results as tank, what's the point in having both?
I thought we are supposed to tag every visible, noticeable things on an image.
You are. It doesn't look like a tank so it should not get the tank tag.
BUR #14363 has been approved by @nonamethanks.
remove implication armored_vehicle -> ground_vehicle
I don't know how this thread turned into this but in any case this implication should not exist.
World_Funeral said:
Listen here, pal.
I'm not your pal.
I bet people are smart enough to know what type of vehicle tanks are, and why are they so heavy].
The hell does this have to do with anything? You should try responding to the things people actually say.
I did not see any ground vehicle implication for battleship or warship.
Did I say there was an implication? No, I did not. I said there were non-ground vehicles that have that tag when they shouldn't.
Useless? "Umbrella terms" are not useless at all.
They are useless when they're basically just an alias for a different tag anyways.
By this logic, armored vehicle is as useless as school uniform, when we have things like Kita high school uniform or Nijigasaki Academy school uniform
Tell me, is there one specific school that dominates the entire school uniform tag? There's not, is there? That's the difference, smart alek.
I thought we are supposed to tag every visible, noticeable things on an image.
Not if that means cluttering them with terms nobody will ever search for or blacklist. That's why umbrella tags that are dominated by one sub-tag are discouraged. You're supposed to tag what people care about so they can find or avoid them.
Roger that, sergeant. I do agree with your point on how tank does not imply armored vehicle does not make sense at all.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or genuinely just cant understand what people say to you.
edit: I've gone through and pruned the armored vehicle tag and updated the wiki to reflect what was in the tag. There are only 181 active posts, compared to 7148 tanks.
Updated by user 536050
I agree with this BUR. A very simple tank vehicle_focus search is just as effective; as such, there's no need for tank_focus to exist.
The bulk update request #14361 (forum #230175) has been rejected by @nonamethanks.
The bulk update request #14363 (forum #230190) has been approved by @nonamethanks.
I agree that tanks should not be tagged armored vehicles, and to leave armored vehicles for "armored vehicles except tanks", because the alternative would mean that we'd need to make a non-tank armored vehicle tag just to find them, and we'd be effectively turning armored vehicle into a tank equivalent.
