Medieval Arms & Armament Tag Cleanup

Posted under Tags

For ages now, I've said I'd make this thread. Well, here it is.

We have a huge list of weapons and armor tags, some of which are painfully granular. As we see, we sporadically get things like topic #18683 where a chaotic discussion about a specific weapon inevitably discovers half a dozen connected tags that are creating a web of issues. Rather than having a new thread every few weeks, I'm just gonna centralize this, as I have a tendency to rope myself into them anyway.

My goal with these kinds of tags are twofold:
First, usability. If I search sword and I see swords, that's the goal. If I search claymore_(sword) and I see a dagger, a spear, and 37 pictures of weird fantasy weapons that are tagged based on canon? That's no good and we need to fix that. (I already cleaned up claymore and zweihander, don't worry.)

Second, readability and getting rid of needlessly pedantic and granular tags. I often use the phrase "vocabulary test tagging". When I say that, I mean things like people needing to know exactly what a gastraphetes is rather than just tagging it as a crossbow. It relies on outside technical knowledge that some dude searching for crossbow won't know.

Such tags often only show up due to someone going full HEMA-nerd on it or because of canon tagging. The former is less common, but the latter is likely where many of these tags come from. Some of their wikis will even admit to that. Although gastraphetes is not a tag, all it takes is one seasonal waifu saying her weapon is one or for the anime's wiki to label it as one for it to become a problem.

Updated by Veraducks

BUR #5983 has been approved by @evazion.

mass update poleaxe -> battle_axe -poleaxe

Thus, here is the first order of business.

The poleaxe tag is currently used in a very literal sense. Most images tagged poleaxe are literally an axe on a long pole. Thankfully, it's not currently aliased to polearm making a renaming very easy.

A poleaxe is essentially a halberd. In fact, there're several images tagged both that I've already cleaned up. This is because a poleaxe and halberd are painfully similar, the only real difference being whether it's a back spike or a back hammer. Such a distinction is fairly useless for tagging, especially considering a large amount of images tagged halberd are literally just spears. I'll clean those up soon.

Thus, renaming poleaxe to the existing battle axe, which is already the existing "generic weapon axe" tag, seems to be the best option. The current images tagged poleaxe that are extra-long already have the polearm tag, which covers that aspect. I've chosen to rename rather than alias because I'd like to alias poleaxe to halberd afterward. This should reduce mistagging. Though I wasn't sure I could do a rename and alias at the same time.

Updated by Veraducks

Aliasing poleaxe to halberd sounds good, they are slightly different but effectively users won't care when tagging.

However I would use a mass update, not a rename, because renames move saved searches, and if there's someone that's subscribed to poleaxes (doubtful but you never know) they likely weren't subscribed for normal battle axes.

Updated by nonamethanks

nonamethanks said:

Aliasing poleaxe to halberd sounds good, they are slightly different but effectively users won't care when tagging.

However I would use a mass update, not a rename, because renames move saved searches, and if there's someone that's subscribed to poleaxes (doubtful but you never know) they likely weren't subscribed for normal battle axes.

Another little thing I didn't know about. Adjusted accordingly.

Scanning around, a significant majority of the poleaxe posts seem to actually be battleaxes (long axes included, especially the bearded ones) instead of poleaxe or halberds. So a mass update looks okay.

Though, we have several actual poleaxes and halberds and bardiches thrown in. I'm assuming we're going to move the poleaxes and halberds out later into halberd? While keeping bardiches (usually it's Fate Testarossa's) tagged battle axe moving forward?

Veradux said:

A poleaxe is essentially a halberd. In fact, there're several images tagged both that I've already cleaned up. This is because a poleaxe and halberd are painfully similar, the only real difference being whether it's a back spike or a back hammer. Such a distinction is fairly useless for tagging, especially considering a large amount of images tagged halberd are literally just spears.

Some clarifications:

They are quite a few choppy polearms with back spikes (instead of hammers) that are considered pollaxes instead of halberds. At least in museum labeling and by certain Medieval scholars. Halberds tend to have their back 'spike' pointing down like a hook (and is used such), while poleaxes have straighter and more 'substantial' spikes (used for piercing armor). Overall, it seems like the main distinction are these three:

  • Length
    • Poleaxes are usually shorter than the wielder's height. (It's primary use is basically like a long-hafted axe with some extra useful bits tacked on)
    • Halberds are usually much longer than the wielder's height. (It's primary use it basically like a longspear for formation fighting, with some extra useful bits tacked on)
  • Blade
    • Poleaxes have actual axe heads. Usually mounted as multiple different parts.
    • Halberds generally have a simple one-piece forged blade that looks like an angled trapezoid (e.g. post #4313825) or a wavy 'concave' shape, instead of being actual axe heads.
  • Role
    • Poleaxes are personal combat weapons used for anti-armor (some say developed specifically to breach plate armor). They tend to be wielded by knights and men-at-arms .
      • They also tend to be more ornamental decorated as a result.
    • Halberds are formation weapons. They tend to be wielded by common soldiers (and sergeants). Their main use is to combat spears and pikes, as well as cavalry. The halberd's construction (unwieldy length, plus shape of blade and spike) means its much less-suited for combating heavy armor.
      • Halberds are also ceremonial weapons for bodyguard units. As such, fantasy/medieval "guards" also tend to carry halberds.

So, generally, most real-world examples can be cleanly divided into either poleaxe or halberd. The problem is that the default "Western Fantasy halberd' (named "halberd" in-universe) pretty much blurs the lines between the two, having:

  • Length at wielder's height, or slightly longer.
  • Actual axe heads mounted as multiple pieces.
  • Used for personal combat instead of formation fighting or bodyguarding (because mooks and guards are boring while heroes are cool).

The "Japanese Western Fantasy halberd" (with Chinese and Korean examples following suit) tend to further exaggerate the 'axe' head, and/or turn the back spike/hammer into a second choppy blade, to the point that many examples are no longer halberds nor poleaxes but are straight-up battleaxes instead.

So, basically, what we should do is exactly as you suggested: shove all the halberd and poleaxe looking polearms into halberd, then move the remaining all into battle axe.

--

In a certain ironic sense, most of the examples we have tagged as halberd are likely to be poleaxes instead of halberds (shorter length, actual axe head, pointy 'can-opener' spike instead of hooky 'rider-dragging' ones). But people know how to tag halberd ("choppy" polearm with an extra spear head, as how most video games use it) better than poleaxe, which gets confused for long-hafted axes all the time (because of the word "pole"). So halberd should probably be the primary tag, with poleaxe aliased to it. Or maybe we can just leave poleaxe empty as an ambiguous tag.

(The alternate spelling "pollaxe" might be less likely to be confused [with "poll" referring to the axe and/or hammer head], which may be useful for consideration in case someone decides to disambiguate between pollaxes and halberds in the future... but personally it still wouldn't be worth the effort.)

Updated by NNescio

NNescio said:

Though, we have several actual poleaxes and halberds and bardiches thrown in. I'm assuming we're going to move the poleaxes and halberds out later into halberd? While keeping bardiches (usually it's Fate Testarossa's) tagged battle axe moving forward?

As I said, I'd be implicating poleaxe to halberd. They're virtually indistinguishable to a vast majority of people and used interchangeably in modern media. I moved over a fair few.

As for bardiche, we don't even have a tag for them and, again, most people wouldn't be able to tell you what it looks like without googling. Fate Testarossa's isn't even a bardiche, it's a pretty generic sci-fi axe.

Veradux said:

As I said, I'd be implicating poleaxe to halberd. They're virtually indistinguishable to a vast majority of people and used interchangeably in modern media. I moved over a fair few.

So we're going to use poleaxe as a subset of halberd, for the ones with more substantial choppy axe heads, I presume? Hmm, might work better than an alias then, and less likely to rankle a few feathers. Also potentially allows people to search for 'actual' halberds by excluding poleaxe (though this will rely on poleaxe being consistently tagged).

Veradux said:

As for bardiche, we don't even have a tag for them and, again, most people wouldn't be able to tell you what it looks like without googling. Fate Testarossa's isn't even a bardiche, it's a pretty generic sci-fi axe.

Sometimes it gets depicted with a longer, more crescent-shaped blade that looks more like a bardiche instead of a long-hafted axe. Though, yeah, checking around it seems like the official art is also inconsistent and it gets depicted as more axe-like most of the time.

NNescio said:

So we're going to use poleaxe as a subset of halberd, for the ones with more substantial choppy axe heads, I presume? Hmm, might work better than an alias then, and less likely to rankle a few feathers. Also potentially allows people to search for 'actual' halberds by excluding poleaxe (though this will rely on poleaxe being consistently tagged).

Sorry, I often mix up implication and alias when speaking.

I plan on aliasing poleaxe to halberd. Poleaxe has no reason to be a tag when the differences are so minuscule and technical.

Also, please leave the full-screen long wikis and explanations behind. We do not need 600-word essays on every tag change. What you've done to a lot of weapon wikis like guan dao is absurd.

Veradux said:

Sorry, I often mix up implication and alias when speaking.

I plan on aliasing poleaxe to halberd. Poleaxe has no reason to be a tag when the differences are so minuscule and technical.

Also, please leave the full-screen long wikis and explanations behind. We do not need 600-word essays on every tag change. What you've done to a lot of weapon wikis like guan dao is absurd.

The main wiki body basically just distills all the pertinent points into three lines across two paragraphs. It's short and concise.

The rest are just examples, plus a "see also" section for related weapons.

I suppose I could hide all the examples under expand tags if some people don't like seeing examples.

Note that the "guan dao" tag has been sitting there for at least 6 years without a wiki. And underpopulated as a result. Those examples also basically act as "hey, here's a couple characters with weapons that you can go tag guan_dao with" (with some additional notes not to blindly canon tag guan_dao if the blade isn't visible).

The Kan'u Unchou ones (that I gardened) were interesting in a sense, because they almost never get 'mistagged' naginata or glaive, but spear, even when the spear head isn't visible. And then holding spear on top of that that, which basically frustrates my gardening attempts. Especailly since sometimes it also counts as a spear too (when spear head is visible and actively used), so I have to look carefully at each post and can't just blindly copy-paste tags.

The point is that nobody is ever going to read all that. Someone searching for information on those weapons would look to wikipedia, not danbooru. Personally if I open a wiki and see all that stuff I'm not even going to bother reading the first line.

nonamethanks said:

The point is that nobody is ever going to read all that. Someone searching for information on those weapons would look to wikipedia, not danbooru. Personally if I open a wiki and see all that stuff I'm not even going to bother reading the first line.

Wikipedia doesn't exactly provide pertinent examples though. They use real life ones. Same goes with their definitions.

All my examples are pertinent though, for Danbooru tagging purposes. I don't put something in as an example if it's not going to be useful for tagging purposes.

I mean, sure, if people hate them so much I can hide them all under expand tags, though this will require reordering in some of the cases.

Edit: Done. Should had done those earlier but the expand tags slightly mis-aligning the bullet points was what frustrated me. Still misaligned, but prolly still better than leaving the wall of text unexpanded.

Edit2: Generally speaking, when I write a wiki for a gentag, I will try to keep the pertinent points down to within 2-4 paragraphs. The wiki will be written primarily oriented towards telling people how to identify and tag the... "thing" or "concept", with a brief background provided if necessary (unlike say, some other wiki definitions that overemphasizes the real-world background part, with the tagging/identification part being left as a mere footnote). If it is still too long, I will also include a brief one-sentence summary at the top, set off in italics (sometimes this will use a quoted dictionary definition if I feel it is appropriate).

Then I will move unto examples. This I admit I have a tendency to get carried away with, though moving forward I'll try to only put 1-2 of the best examples and hide the others within an "expand" section.

Edit3: Tried to shorten glaive somewhat. Problems is that I felt somewhat compelled to put a bunch of clarifications under the See Also section... that probably should be moved to their relevant wikis instead (in particular the difference between a naginata and a nagamaki).

To be honest, I'm quite okay with just shunting naginata and nagamaki together (via nagamaki -> naginata alias), but that's a decision that I can't make unilaterally, while writing 'instructions' on how to disambiguate them is one I can just do without consulting others.

The glaive article also has a bunch of additional (expanded) notes that are basically "See all these other European polearms that are technically different weapons? Well, we don't currently care, so put them all under glaive for now". Should these latter notes be removed?

Updated by NNescio

Re: the guan dao wiki. Having a "See also" section is fine. Having a (brief) list of notable characters is also fine. But the tangents-upon-tangents and the multiple layers of bullet points and expandable sections is too much. If you're going to make a list, leave it as a simple list of tags and leave further explanation to the linked wikis.

Imagine going to the wiki for sword, and most of the wiki is talking about how Excalibur is a famous sword in Arthurian legend, and here's what Excalibur is called in Welsh, Cornish, and Breton, and here's a list of other related swords inspired by Arthurian legend, and here's a list of videogame characters with swords based on Excalibur. This may all be loosely relevant, but at a certain point it gets to be too much.

It reminds me of the "In popular culture" sections you used to see on Wikipedia pages, where you go to a wiki page to learn about something, and instead it's a massive braindump of references to that thing in TV shows and videogames.

Keep in mind that if you're an uploader or tagger, there are hundreds if not thousands of tags you need to remember. That's why it's important that wiki pages are easy to parse and easy to digest. Wikis, especially wikis for gentags, should be thought of more as dictionary definitions than as exhaustive encyclopedia entries.

Updated by evazion

evazion said:

Re: the guan dao wiki. Having a "See also" section is fine. Having a (brief) list of notable characters is also fine. But the tangents-upon-tangents and the multiple layers of bullet points and expandable sections is too much. If you're going to make a list, leave it as a simple list of tags and leave further explanation to the linked wikis.

Imagine going to the wiki for sword, and most of the wiki is talking about how Excalibur is a famous sword in Arthurian legend, and here's what Excalibur is called in Welsh, Cornish, and Breton, and here's a list of other related swords inspired by Arthurian legend, and here's a list of videogame characters with swords based on Excalibur. This may all be loosely relevant, but at a certain point it gets to be too much.

It reminds me of the "In popular culture" sections you used to see on Wikipedia pages, where you go to a wiki page to learn about something, and instead it's a massive braindump of references to that thing in TV shows and videogames.

Keep in mind that if you're an uploader or tagger, there are hundreds if not thousands of tags you need to remember. That's why it's important that wiki pages are easy to parse and easy to digest. Wikis, especially wikis for gentags, should be thought of more as dictionary definitions than as exhaustive encyclopedia entries.

Thanks for the constructive feedback. I'll try keeping the examples short in the future. And yes, I was writing them as encyclopedia entries instead of dictionary definitions, so the comparison is indeed apt.

The intention of the names is because... well, *embarrassed*, I thought it might be harder for people to recognize a guandao compared to a sword, but guandaos tend to be named one of those names in fiction, so I thought providing a list would help people identify them. Though in retrospect, just the single most common Chinese and Japanese names is enough.

Updated by NNescio

1 2