Various weapon implications

@DanbooruBot: The bulk update request #1881 (forum #152855)...

2018-12-24T07:54:12-05:00

The bulk update request #1881 (forum #152855) has been approved by @Type-kun.

@Kikimaru: create implication light_machine_gun -> gun ...

2018-12-04T20:23:58-05:00

create implication light_machine_gun -> gun

Link to request

EDIT: The bulk update request #1881 (forum #152855) has been approved by @Type-kun.

@BrokenEagle98: Ah... thanks for that... :)

2016-09-20T19:20:13-04:00

Ah... thanks for that... :)

@Hillside_Moose: The bulk update request #810 has been approved.

2016-09-20T18:33:20-04:00

The bulk update request #810 has been approved.

@BrokenEagle98: COUGH... > BrokenEagle98 said: > > create...

2016-09-20T17:38:31-04:00

*COUGH*...

BrokenEagle98 said:

create implication bt-42 -> tank
create implication carro_armato_p40 -> tank
create implication carro_veloce_cv-33 -> tank
create implication centurion_(tank) -> tank
create implication char_b1 -> tank
create implication churchill_(tank) -> tank
create implication cromwell_(tank) -> tank
create implication crusader_(tank) -> tank
create implication is-2 -> tank
create implication jagdpanther -> tank
create implication jagdpanzer_38(t) -> tank
create implication matilda_(tank) -> tank
create implication m3_lee -> tank
create implication m4_sherman -> tank
create implication m18_hellcat -> tank
create implication sherman_firefly -> tank
create implication sturmgeschutz_iii -> tank
create implication tiger_i -> tank
create implication tiger_ii -> tank
create implication tiger_(p) -> tank
create implication type_3_chi-nu -> tank
create implication type_10_(tank) -> tank
create implication type_89_i-gou -> tank
create implication type_95_ha-gou -> tank

Link to request

A bunch of tank implications.

BTW, I finally broke down and wrote a mass-update script for the above, which caught about ~75 misses.

@279okshap: > reiyasona said: > > However, a trained eye...

2016-07-20T04:51:10-04:00

reiyasona said:

However, a trained eye can very well spot huge differences by looking at the armament, armor and overall construction.

I consider myself to have a reasonably "trained eye", as you say, but I would be hard-pressed to spot many huge differences between an M26 Pershing medium tank and the exact same M26 Pershing heavy tank after the type's reclassification. Nor, from the right side, between an M2A2 infantry fighting vehicle, M3A2 armored reconnaissance vehicle, and M6 self-propelled air defense vehicle. I could, however, very easily list some huge differences between the Aufklfz 93, BRM-3K, and AMX-10 RC armored reconnaissance vehicles. (Like the conspicuous lack of a huge gun on the Auflkfz 93.) Or between the Kornet-D, M50 Ontos, and Kanonjagdpanzer tank destroyers.

Not every vehicle depicted by an artist corresponds to a real-world type, is drawn in great detail, or is clearly depicted. Nonetheless, tanks still tend to look like tanks (i.e. there's a sort of archetype for "what tanks look like"), and so we can tag them as such. This is not the case with a great many more-specific classifications. "what tank destroyers look like" is meaningless, because nothing looks like a generic tank destroyer. With the huge variety of tank destroyers in existence, any given vehicle resembles, at best, some subset of tank destroyers. The same problem exists, albeit to a lesser extent, with subclasses of tank. An M2A1 light tank looks quite different from an M551, and a T2 medium tank quite different from a Panther. (Not to mention types that don't neatly fit, like many British tanks under the cruiser/infantry division.)

As such, these classifications become largely useless, and tagging unclear fictional vehicles becomes pointless, even for ones quite grounded in a realistic aesthetic. Give me a fictional tall, tracked, Cold War/modern-looking armored vehicle with a long-barreled 100mm-ish-looking gun in an angular turret, and I can tag it as any number of things:

-a self-propelled mortar, because it sort of resembles a 2S31 Vena
-an infantry fighting vehicle, because it sort of resembles a BMP-3
-a command vehicle, because it sort of resembles a BMP-3K
-a gun-armed tank destroyer, because it sort of resembles a 2S25 Sprut-SD
-an actual tank, because it sort of resembles a sort of Magach 7
-or heck, a missile-armed tank destroyer, because it sort of resembles a Pereh, and the "gun" could just be completely fake

And who's to tell me I'm wrong? Sure, it's almost certainly a tank, as far as the artist cares. But if I want to call it a self-propelled mortar, well - it's not like it doesn't resemble a self-propelled mortar, i.e. the specific one I'm comparing it to. It's remotely plausible, I'm tagging it as such in good faith (as far as anyone else knows), and I can sit here arguing and reverting tag edits until the end of time, all the while doing a disservice to people searching for tank to find things that look like tanks.

---

Frankly, I'm of the opinion that we probably don't really need as many ever-increasingly granular and specific military equipment-related tags as we have in the first place. I wonder how many people have ever searched for ots-12, or the dozens of tags like it for obscure weapons that only have, and will likely only ever have, one or two posts. But I suppose that's neither here nor there.

---

As an aside, while looking through other stuff, I noticed that type_90_kyu-maru and type_90_tkr should probably be changed. "Kyu-maru" is almost certainly from Wikipedia, and as far as I've ever been able to tell, was probably just tacked onto the page name years ago by some editor who needed a less sensible way to distinguish the Chinese and Japanese Type 90 tanks than, say, "Type 90 tank (China)". (It'd be "kyuu-maru", anyway, under Danbooru's romanization.) type_90_tkr, meanwhile, is a conflation of "Type 90 [armored recovery vehicle]" and "TKR90" (attributed unsourced by Japanese-language Wikipedia, but not the MoD/JGSDF's equipment page which lists these short forms.) One or the other would work better.

@NWF_Renim: > BrokenEagle98 said: > > I've taken the work...

2016-07-10T18:32:33-04:00

BrokenEagle98 said:

I've taken the work done classifying the military vehicles and applied a test case to the List of Ground Vehicles wiki. If you look under the German category, I've grouped the different military vehicles by type.

Take a look and see how if it's better than just the alphabetized list that it was beforehand.

Looks fine to me, though I did migrate the sturmtiger from the self-propelled artillery section over to the assault gun section.

This sub-categorization may be a bit much for countries with very few vehicles though, so perhaps simply ordering similar to how you did for Germany, but without creating actual sub-divisions.

So instead of:

It'd be:

@BrokenEagle98: It's not only tanks though, so...

2016-07-10T17:10:59-04:00

It's not only tanks though, so...

@reiyasona: > BrokenEagle98 said: > > I've taken the work...

2016-07-10T16:50:51-04:00

BrokenEagle98 said:

I've taken the work done classifying the military vehicles and applied a test case to the List of Ground Vehicles wiki. If you look under the German category, I've grouped the different military vehicles by type.

Take a look and see how if it's better than just the alphabetized list that it was beforehand.

Maybe we should publish this more detailed tank class related information under a new "List of Tanks" entry or simply add it to the tank wiki.

@BrokenEagle98: > NWF_Renim said: > > ... As far as I see it...

2016-07-10T13:36:26-04:00

NWF_Renim said:

... As far as I see it they're only worthwhile as categories for a list. ...

I've taken the work done classifying the military vehicles and applied a test case to the List of Ground Vehicles wiki. If you look under the German category, I've grouped the different military vehicles by type.

Take a look and see how if it's better than just the alphabetized list that it was beforehand.

@NWF_Renim: > reiyasona said: > > This is more about specs...

2016-07-08T20:24:35-04:00

reiyasona said:

This is more about specs and classification than rough optical differences. However, a trained eye can very well spot huge differences by looking at the armament, armor and overall construction.

If this is only about pure information and has pretty much no major visual differences and lots of overlap between categories, then again I'm going to have to disagree with trying to create them. This sounds again like information that should be reserved for tag lists and the wikis of these individual vehicles.

Also a problem with these categories is that it was their respective militaries that classified them, and how each one classified them didn't necessarily fit into a unified scheme as all the others militaries.

I'm also rather against tags like the tank destroyer tag, because that was a role and various types of vehicles could fit into that role, thus it would be nothing more than a grab bag of various vehicles that share a role but not a common design.

Blue_Trident said:

Additionally, different class tags would allow for narrower searching than just the very broad tank, without having to string together all the tanks individually. medium tank verus ~panzerkampfwagen_iii ~panzerkampfwagen_iv ~panzerkampfwagen_panther ~type_97_chi-ha ~m4_sherman ~m3_lee etc. Virtually all of the sub-types are already tags, so this would just be formalizing their use.

But again, what does this tag even visually indicate? You're failing in defining that outside of the fact that that was what their military labelled them as. If you wish to search for specific vehicles in a category, have them separated by type in a tag list.

@Blue_Trident: Additionally, different class tags would allow...

2016-07-08T20:19:11-04:00

Additionally, different class tags would allow for narrower searching than just the very broad tank, without having to string together all the tanks individually. medium tank verus ~panzerkampfwagen_iii ~panzerkampfwagen_iv ~panzerkampfwagen_panther ~type_97_chi-ha ~m4_sherman ~m3_lee etc. Virtually all of the sub-types are already tags, so this would just be formalizing their use.

@BrokenEagle98: > NWF_Renim said: > > In general if a tag has...

2016-07-08T20:18:47-04:00

NWF_Renim said:

In general if a tag has 20 or more posts, I personally am of the opinion that's enough to start considering an implication. In this case, I guess just make sure at least the number of posts hits the double digits if you're going to propose an implication for it.

Got it, I'll be updating the request then for 10 or more posts.

@NWF_Renim: In general if a tag has 20 or more posts, I...

2016-07-08T20:16:47-04:00

In general if a tag has 20 or more posts, I personally am of the opinion that's enough to start considering an implication. In this case, I guess just make sure at least the number of posts hits the double digits if you're going to propose an implication for it.

@reiyasona: > NWF_Renim said: > > Not that I wish to be...

2016-07-08T20:09:45-04:00

NWF_Renim said:

Not that I wish to be the one to rain on your guys' parade, but I do not see the value in making tank subtypes into tags. As far as I see it they're only worthwhile as categories for a list. The reason for this is I fail to see a strong visual identifier between the types that would warrant making subtypes to partition the tank tag.

What visual differences would actually tell a user that the M24 Chaffee (post #431995) is a light tank, as opposed to a medium tank like the Type 97 Chi-Ha (post #1937846)? Or perhaps that the Panther (post #1363209) is a medium tank as opposed to a heavy tank like the Tiger I (post #2282840)? What divides a super heavy tank like the T28 Super Heavy Tank (post #2268695) from a heavy assault gun like the Sturmtiger (post #1356683)?

This is more about specs and classification than rough optical differences. However, a trained eye can very well spot huge differences by looking at the armament, armor and overall construction.

@BrokenEagle98: @NWF_Renim What about the other aspect of the...

2016-07-08T20:04:39-04:00

@NWF_Renim

What about the other aspect of the request, i.e. 5 or more posts? Should that number be higher or lower? I currently have another update request in the works with all tanks with 3 or more posts, and I can easily tailor the existing request if that number should be higher (i.e. more than 5).

@NWF_Renim: Not that I wish to be the one to rain on your...

2016-07-08T19:31:41-04:00

Not that I wish to be the one to rain on your guys' parade, but I do not see the value in making tank subtypes into tags. As far as I see it they're only worthwhile as categories for a list. The reason for this is I fail to see a strong visual identifier between the types that would warrant making subtypes to partition the tank tag.

What visual differences would actually tell a user that the M24 Chaffee (post #431995) is a light tank, as opposed to a medium tank like the Type 97 Chi-Ha (post #1937846)? Or perhaps that the Panther (post #1363209) is a medium tank as opposed to a heavy tank like the Tiger I (post #2282840)? What divides a super heavy tank like the T28 Super Heavy Tank (post #2268695) from a heavy assault gun like the Sturmtiger (post #1356683)?

@BrokenEagle98: > Blue_Trident said: > > Do we want to create...

2016-07-08T17:57:30-04:00

Blue_Trident said:

Do we want to create a tag for infantry fighting vehicles as well?

Yeah, I'd say so. As long as we have some momentum going, might as well do those as well.

@Blue_Trident: > reiyasona said: > > We can collaborate with...

2016-07-08T17:06:17-04:00

reiyasona said:

We can collaborate with Etherpad!

Neat! I'll see what I can do.

BrokenEagle98 said:

My original list included tanks with only 5 or more instances (besides the tanks that already have implications)... is that something we want to keep up, or should we go lower or higher?

My first instinct is to say since we're already working on it we might as well do as many as we can. Though perhaps it's not worth it for the tanks with only 1 or 2 posts.

BrokenEagle98 said:

Yeah, that's not a problem, although instead of listing them in each class, it might be better to segregate things in the List of Ground Vehicles wiki.

It might be worth creating a separate List of Armored Vehicles and get rid of the partial listing on the tank wiki page.

Do we want to create a tag for infantry fighting vehicles as well?

@BrokenEagle98: > reiyasona said: > > If we don't create an...

2016-07-08T16:41:58-04:00

reiyasona said:

If we don't create an implication for these tanks, we should still mention them in the wiki entry of their respective class.

Yeah, that's not a problem, although instead of listing them in each class, it might be better to segregate things in the List of Ground Vehicles wiki.