Ship seams rather mixed upp. There are spaceships, airships, waterships and a few unidentifiable futuristic vehicles (hoverbikes?). Its worst att the start and gets better with mostly waterships (then there is lots of mecha musume but I supose thats OK).

Should we define ship as large vehicle floating in water and put the unidentified stuff in spaceship?

There are allso a few pictures in boat that should probably belong in ship and vise versa.

I'd think that since other vehicles have perfectly good tags of their own, we should stick to the standard usage of ship to describe water vehicles.

Two cases to consider:

1. Are submarines ships? They are usually visually and operationally distinct from surface ships and have their own tag, but are still water vehicles and typically called ships for naval / maritime purposes.

2. I can think of at least two anime where a water-based ship is refit for spaceflight. Uchuu_Senkan_Yamato is one of them, it would be a bit of a spoiler to name the other. Are these still ships in addition to being spaceships?

I wouldn't count submarines under the ship tag. The ship tag probably should be reserved for surface going naval vessels, with an extension to include any other vessel that is based on a surface going naval vessel even if used in another environment.

There are series that have normal ships flying through the air, and since I'd count those as a ship I don't see why ones flying through space would be any different.

Shinjidude said:
it would be a bit of a spoiler to name the other.

You could use spoilertags.

, but that example would be rendered moot if we don't consider submarines ships.

Submarines, as any submariner will tell you, are boats.

Fencedude said:
Submarines, as any submariner will tell you, are boats.

Well, yes, but the spaceships in Firefly were also called boats by the people who worked directly with them.

Also submarines treated more like ships when it comes to operations and assignments compared to say PT-boats or lifeboats or landing craft. They are also much more comparable to ships in terms of size, cost, and crew complement.

They are certainly distinct enough to keep separate from ship, but I'd much rather see us include them in ship than in boat.

NWF_Renim said: I don't see why ones flying through space would be any different.

Because we have spaceship and they often look markedly different from terrestrial water vehicles.

If there is a perfectly regular looking water ship flying through air or space, then of course you could tag it ship. Specifying water was to indicate a set of visual forms we're all familiar with, not to indicate that they could never be traveling through anything else.

I'm ambivalent about submarines. No opinion.

Though subs are boats by naval tradition, that's no reason for us to catagorize them alongside rowboats, which constitutes the majority of the boat tag.

How about we just tag them... submarine. And be done with it. I really feel like that's sufficient. Not every single tag needs to be part of some large implication hierarchy.

jxh2154 said:
How about we just tag them... submarine. And be done with it. I really feel like that's sufficient. Not every single tag needs to be part of some large implication hierarchy.

This.

What, we're not shooting for the goal of putting in a single tag and having every other relevant tag automatically applied?

jxh2154 said:
Not every single tag needs to be part of some large implication hierarchy.

Yet in forum #27908, you weren't opposed to having implications like apple -> fruit and fruit -> food. What gives?

Danbooru really isn't built to handle full ontologies and all their complexity. Having every tag implicte 5 more general tags may be useful in some situations but it really clutters the tag list.

I'm not totally against ontologies, they are a part of a future pipe-dream version of Danbooru I sometimes envision. Along with things like hierarchical tags (tags on tags), coordinates attached to tags, an expanded set of tag types, etc.

Despite this, Albert among others have argued against such complexities in the past as they make the system harder to use and maintain and could hurt server performance (not to mention possibly requiring a ton of gutting and re-coding which is probably infeasable). I don't think trying to emulate a full wordnet ontology is something we should even attempt with the existing system as it stands.

Also handling aliases and implications seems to be somewhat time consuming and tedious, especially en masse. I don't know for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's most of what jxh2154 does anymore with the number of requests we have had as late. Maybe his interface needs streamlined for the process.

EDIT: I keep re-editing this post and contradicting myself. This really feels like I'm arguing against my normal stance, because I actually really like the idea of making Danbooru more semantically rich. In this case though given the complexities and burden of maintenance I don't think it's feasible at the moment.

jjj14 said: Yet in forum #27908, you weren't opposed to having implications like apple -> fruit and fruit -> food. What gives?

I see where you're coming from, and do note that I haven't done it yet... With the number of threads I read here, being 100% consistent in my decisions is genuinely very difficult. I did think about that thread in relation to this one, though. I think it's just that in the food case, it's all really clear cut. I'm not necessarily against systematic implications, but if they're not entirely straightforward there's nothing wrong with just leaving them off.

Shinjidude said: I don't know for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's most of what jxh2154 does anymore with the number of requests we have had as late.

I've heard legends speak of there being images on danbooru, but I can't remember when I last saw one outside of the mod queue and appeals thread. =P

Okay, it's not quite that bad, but yes the vast majority of my time around here is spent on the forums (and most of the rest in dmail). I almost never upload stuff anymore, bah.

The problem with both the food and ship implications, I suspect, is this:

To my understanding, tagging is done according to what is prominent in an image – we don't aspire to tag every little thing, no matter how insignificant, that happens to appear in an image. If this is correct, then consider the difference between claiming that an image is about apples and claiming that it is about fruit, or claiming that an image is about spaceships and claiming that it is about ships in general. There appears to be a subtle difference.

Soljashy said: To my understanding, tagging is done according to what is prominent in an image

I'd like this to be true, but it seems to be the minority approach.

jxh2154 said:
Okay, it's not quite that bad, but yes the vast majority of my time around here is spent on the forums (and most of the rest in dmail). I almost never upload stuff anymore, bah.

Serves you right for agreeing to be an admin! Seriously though, I don't envy you at all. At least when I get a shitty full-time job that has me work from 6:30AM and spent the rest of my time sleeping, I can switch off the other full-time job and just not moderate for a while. If you did that, I'm afraid there'd be nothing to come back to...