FN SCAR subtags (bumped for moderation)

BUR #16729 has been rejected.

remove implication fn_scar -> assault_rifle
create implication fn_scar -> rifle
create implication fn_scar_16 -> assault_rifle
create implication fn_scar_17 -> battle_rifle

The FN SCAR is divided into two variants, the SCAR-L 5.56 assault rifle and SCAR-H 7.62 mm NATO battle rifle. While many users manually imply them with main tag. The current FN SCAR implication can cause a huge error when there is only SCAR-H (post #5178027 as an example) on the image.
I cannot request aliasing all the two model into a single FN SCAR tag because they're different weapon classes - and can be distinguishable enough by the magazine shape.

Unlike the issue with Glock (topic #23648) while all models do look similar to each other despite caliber and size difference, so using the catch-all term Glock for any handgun models.

Also, do you think both variant tags should imply FN SCAR as well? I am planning to change the BUR on demand. Thank you for your time and ideas.

Additional notes:

• topic #23250 was eventually rejected automatically. I consider the requested alias is technically misleading.
• FN Mk 20 SSR DMR/semi-auto sniper rifle is based on the SCAR-H, but it should not imply FN SCAR.

Bump.

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 #16729 (forum #240884) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

BUR #21678 has been rejected.

remove implication fn_scar -> assault_rifle
create implication fn_scar -> rifle
create alias fn_scar_16 -> fn_scar
create alias fn_scar_17 -> fn_scar

Alternative to the previous BUR #16729

Yes, I and many users acknowledge that assault rifle and battle rifle are different class of rifles. Another problem is - there are cases when images solely depict SCAR-H got a manual FN SCAR implication which gives somehow misleading assault rifle. I.e. post #5962604.
Both variants are basically the same firearm with identical external appearance and same mechanism, despite differing caliber and slight barrel length difference. The only minor distinct point is the magazine curvature, straight for 7.62mm NATO BR variant and curved 5.56mm AR. So with it, I'd rather let users tag their rifle classification accordingly.

Therefor I considered it's better to merge both tags. We cannot expect average users to be very detailed regarding identifying weapons in general sense, despite the presence of Girls' Frontline characters that represent the two SCAR variants. Analogous to previous forum #237595.

As for the FN Mk 20 SSR sniper variant, it should stay for having major visual and technical distinction.
Please take the previous one into reconsideration.

Also, may I ask why some consider this to be bad idea?

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

The bulk update request #21678 (forum #261747) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

BUR #21678 has been rejected.

Hey, I honestly detest bumping BUR threads but ignoring autorejection for almost a year is just too unfortunate. Does anybody else have better alternatives to my rejected BURs regarding the basically same weapon by design, but with different calibers. Especially the downvoters. Prove my arguments wrong beforehand or mods can choose the first option instead.
Thanks.

The only thing your incessant and annoying bumping reminds me of is that I still don't understand why we need a distinction between battle rifle and assault rifle when we end up with almost identical weapons being put in one tag vs the other purely based on technical specs and not how the weapon actually looks.

Also, once again, forum #270055.

nonamethanks said:
The only thing your incessant and annoying bumping reminds me of is that I still don't understand why we need a distinction between battle rifle and assault rifle when we end up with almost identical weapons being put in one tag vs the other purely based on technical specs and not how the weapon actually looks.

Also, once again, forum #270055.

Related: forum #233179 - worth another consideration

Sorry for my bumps. But yes, at least for searching and visual identification purpose (technicalities aside), both battle rifle and assault rifle look really identical. Eventually I found the alias Veraducks purposed on that forum actually make practical sense. Both are still distinct from SMGs due to their overall length and wider magazine profile.
Regarding my refutation on forum #233427 in order to keep the term technically accurate, I proposed aliasing both (forum #288564) into something like "automatic rifle" instead. Its counterparts in other languages such as (Schnellfeuergewehr) in German and автоматическая винтовка in Russian, are commonly used to refer both assault rifle and battle rifle.

The distinction between AR and BR nomenclature even became quite interchangably confused throughout history:

• Fedorov Avtomat, the very first automatic rifle fires the full-power 6.5×50mmSR Arisaka round. While the word avtomat itself in modern Russian usage refers to assault rifle.
• Austrian military once designated the FN FAL as Sturmgewehr 58 (StG58), despite it fires full-power 7.62 NATO round and Sturmgewehr is directly translated into "assault rifle