cleaning up 40k tags pt 1

BUR #20147 has been rejected.

category death_guard -> character
category thousand_sons -> character
category imperial_fists -> character
category ultramarines -> character
category iron_warriors -> character
category blood_angels -> character
category iron_hands -> character
category word_bearers -> character
category world_eaters -> character
category white_scars -> character
category emperor's_children -> character
category night_lords -> character

Pretty self explanatory. Cleaning up old tags.

Edit: Fixed wiki pages and a typo.

Putting aside the fact that emperors children isn't a tag (that's Emperor's Children), consider for a moment whether this is needed, and what the implications of this change would be. By some arguments, you would be right in doing so, because you'd be providing nameless marines a tag to represent themselves with in the character tag section - however, that argument is only valid if there isn't such a tag in its place to begin with, and there is a tag for all of them, which is Adeptus Astartes (and also Adepta Sororitas). Because there is already a tag for nameless Warhammer space marines, the individual chapters can remain general tags, in line with other group tags on Danbooru.

Additionally, consider the implications for named characters. Look at post #6735608, for example. Guilliman already has a tag for himself, but because Ultramarines is needlessly a character tag as well, he's now represented with two tags whenever he's depicted in his armor (armor which is not necessarily unique to him, as an Ultramarine). Now imagine if someone were to upload art of 10 named Warhammer characters, all wearing the armor of different Adeptus Astartes chapters - suddenly, that post has 20 character tags listed on it purely because of this decision.

Damian0358 said:

Putting aside the fact that emperors children isn't a tag (that's Emperor's Children), consider for a moment whether this is needed, and what the implications of this change would be. By some arguments, you would be right in doing so, because you'd be providing nameless marines a tag to represent themselves with in the character tag section - however, that argument is only valid if there isn't such a tag in its place to begin with, and there is a tag for all of them, which is Adeptus Astartes (and also Adepta Sororitas). Because there is already a tag for nameless Warhammer space marines, the individual chapters can remain general tags, in line with other group tags on Danbooru.

Additionally, consider the implications for named characters. Look at post #6735608, for example. Guilliman already has a tag for himself, but because Ultramarines is needlessly a character tag as well, he's now represented with two tags whenever he's depicted in his armor (armor which is not necessarily unique to him, as an Ultramarine). Now imagine if someone were to upload art of 10 named Warhammer characters, all wearing the armor of different Adeptus Astartes chapters - suddenly, that post has 20 character tags listed on it purely because of this decision.

I don't quite understand the issue here? in the examples you are describing (eg, 20 characters wearing armor of different factions) this would be appropriate.

War6t2 said:

I don't quite understand the issue here? in the examples you are describing (eg, 20 characters wearing armor of different factions) this would be appropriate.

But it wouldn't be 20 characters, it would be 10 named characters each wearing a faction's armor (with the faction tags making up the remaining 10 character tags). There aren't two characters in post #6735608, there is only one.

Damian0358 said:

But it wouldn't be 20 characters, it would be 10 named characters each wearing a faction's armor (with the faction tags making up the remaining 10 character tags). There aren't two characters in post #6735608, there is only one.

I know, both are still relevant. eg, just like how tagging something as both "bird" and "owl" is relevant, even if it's one animal.

If I want to see (faction) a named character of that faction is also relevant.

And why exactly did you decide to change the categories manually a few days ago @War6t2?

nonamethanks said:

And why exactly did you decide to change the categories manually a few days ago @War6t2?

Uniformity, since already mentioned some were already character tags and some weren't and discussion here had only been with one person and had died to a standstill with no real conclusion. Ultramarines were a character tag and there were more than 50 of those posts so I couldn't have made the change the opposite direction if I wanted to.

War6t2 said:

Uniformity, since already mentioned some were already character tags and some weren't and discussion here had only been with one person and had died to a standstill with no real conclusion. Ultramarines were a character tag and there were more than 50 of those posts so I couldn't have made the change the opposite direction if I wanted to.

Your BUR got mostly downvotes from multiple experienced users, with the only upvote being from you, and yet you still decided to change the tags. You're not doing your reputation any favors by disregarding the will of the voters (even if they don't actually determine whether it gets approved). You already got a neutral feedback from doing something similar with feathered wings in topic #25242. Please try to avoid making these kind of unilateral changes in the future.

Also, take a bit more time to read and process other's responses. You often seem to miss key details, including in the above conversation, which just makes it more likely that you'll make mistakes.

War6t2 said:

I know, both are still relevant. eg, just like how tagging something as both "bird" and "owl" is relevant, even if it's one animal.

If I want to see (faction) a named character of that faction is also relevant.

This doesn't explain why you think the faction names should be chartags instead of gentags. Since you don't seem to understand what Damian0358 was saying, let me break it down for you:

• Individual characters use character tags (chartags).
• Groups use general tags (gentags).
• The space marines can be tagged with both their name (or Adeptus Astartes if unnamed) and their group.
• Making the groups chartags will result in twice as many chartags as there are characters (which is bad).
• Making the groups gentags keeps the number of chartags equal to the number of characters while still letting users search for space marines by group (which is good).

Since the chapter names are all gentags now, everything is uniform and nothing more needs to be done.

Blank_User said:

.... Since you don't seem to understand what Damian0358 was saying....

That is condescending as hell, please do not. Same to a lesser degree with "You're not doing your reputation any favors". I appreciate polite advice but you sound as if you're lecturing me about the inner workings of the site and you're 1 level above me.

With that out of the way.

You already got a neutral feedback from doing something similar with feathered wings in topic #25242.

That's not what happened, well, not exactly atleast. I make topic #25242 and over a week later someone else dms me about the wing/feathers tags only being for people. Plus before that dm it had turned out my tag script topic #25258 had been changing blacklisting posts (I had been using blacklist + visual overview to avoid misstags) leading to some nonsensical accidental edits like blacklisting monochrome and tagging such posts with blue_feathers. I see the mod who gave me the feedback posted about it in a tag vandalism thread, I dm them essentially "hey why didn't you just contact me, here's what happened, etc etc" and the feedback actually got edited a bit for having essentially been a misunderstanding. Certainly no going against the forums wishes on purpose.

You actually replied to that thread with how I hadn't touched other posts "at least not yet". Just contact me man.

War6t2 said:

That is condescending as hell, please do not. Same to a lesser degree with "You're not doing your reputation any favors". I appreciate polite advice but you sound as if you're lecturing me about the inner workings of the site and you're 1 level above me.

He is lecturing you, and has every right to as a more experienced user. Blank User is at least two levels above you, three if you include Platinum, and he's put a great deal of effort into understanding and improving the site in the short time he's been here. If you don't want to be lectured by someone who clearly has a better understanding of how things work around here than you do, then don't sidestep obviously failing BURs to manually make changes no one else agrees with.

Your desire to make these tags character tags covers at least two threads, and multiple experienced users have been trying to explain to you why that wouldn't be a good idea to do, only for you to ultimately ignore them and take matters into your own hand. That isn't a good look.

blindVigil said:

He is lecturing you, and has every right to as a more experienced user. Blank User is at least two levels above you, three if you include Platinum, and he's put a great deal of effort into understanding and improving the site in the short time he's been here. If you don't want to be lectured by someone who clearly has a better understanding of how things work around here than you do, then don't sidestep obviously failing BURs to manually make changes no one else agrees with.

Your desire to make these tags character tags covers at least two threads, and multiple experienced users have been trying to explain to you why that wouldn't be a good idea to do, only for you to ultimately ignore them and take matters into your own hand. That isn't a good look.

I'm not including gold/platinum because those used to be things you could buy rather than merit based.

As for lecturing, no. I'm NOT talking about blank as the example here because then it gets weirdly personal but in general suppose someone actually is being condescending then being "a more experienced user" doesn't give them the "right" to it. That's just the powertripping stereotype there is about internet forums, reddit mods, etc. Again not talking about blank_user here but the principle of lecturing someone just because you're "higher up" on a website.

Edit: In case we're talking past each other I'm using the word "lecturing" as in talking down to someone/being condescending which I felt that reply was a bit. Not telling someone they made a mistake.

Okay, that perhaps came across as harsher than intended and I don't want to potentially "escalate" anything. I'm not talking about whether or not I made a mistake with tagging, I just felt talked down to and THAT'S what bothered me. Not someone telling me I made a mistake.

Let's just shut this topic down.

The bulk update request #20147 (forum #255317) has been rejected by @War6t2.

War6t2 said:

Okay, that perhaps came across as harsher than intended and I don't want to potentially "escalate" anything. I'm not talking about whether or not I made a mistake with tagging, I just felt talked down to and THAT'S what bothered me. Not someone telling me I made a mistake.

Let's just shut this topic down.

Let me just say I was not trying to be condescending. Unfortunately, some things are hard to sugarcoat and when your responses appear to only address the last sentence of each post, any attempt to bring attention to it is probably going to sound at least a little condescending.

Also, while I appreciate blindVigil's kind words, I don't the ranking itself is that important here. We have a few basic Members who show better understanding of the site than some Builders. There are various reasons why a user fit for Builder status may not be ranked as such. Yes, most Builders will be more experienced than most basic Members, but a title will never tell you the whole story. Anyone can become well-versed in how the site works long before they create an account just by reading (though practical experience still helps a lot). I myself corrected higher-level users on occasion and was taken seriously because I did the research. The point where ranking really starts to matter a lot more is Moderator and Admin levels (green and red names, respectively).

The point about reading more thoroughly and not going behind other user's backs still stands. The latter point is basically what nonamethanks was implying before and was the main reason I gave that reply. There's really no justification for doing that. Your Neutral may have been reworded, but it still contains a record of your mistakes, so you'll have less leeway from now on. An ex-Platinum user was recently banned for a month and demoted for repeatedly making similar mistakes, so I just wanted to make sure you're more careful moving forward.