My two cents are that seperating instruments that look almost completely identical is a little silly, I think instead of having it be a case of being stuck between psychederhythm_psychomaster or fender_jazzmaster we should instead split things into company tags for when it can be uniquely identified plus a tag for the general model of the guitar so I would have:
- A Psychederrhytem tag for the company to be applied to their jazzmaster (and any other guitars they make should that become relevant).
- Renaming the Fender Jazzmaster to simply Jazzmaster, and the same for any other model names (like the Fender Stratocaster and Fender Telecaster etc)
This would let people searching for Jazzmasters see posts with the Psychederhythm Psychomaster while retaining the ability to exclusively search for those alone with a search like jazzmaster + psychederrhytem.
It would also solve the awkwardness in tagging posts like post #6665770 (Tagged gibson_flying_v) with that has the shape of a Flying V but can you really be sure it's a Gibson or a Jackson or any other generally V shaped guitar?
I quite like the sound of that, although I'm not knowledgeable enough to know how exactly to go about implementing it. My main concern with the proposted "it's all a Jazzmaster" approach it's just throwing away information, and probably prone to making the tag bloated as well. Being able to find a model and it's clones/variations sounds good though.
I quite like the sound of that, although I'm not knowledgeable enough to know how exactly to go about implementing it. My main concern with the proposted "it's all a Jazzmaster" approach it's just throwing away information, and probably prone to making the tag bloated as well. Being able to find a model and it's clones/variations sounds good though.
If we want to keep the information about specific models and their wikis then perhaps an implication would be better, implying the clones to the base for instance. I briefly had concerns about this route since it would naturally make the base tag rise to the top but then again these are tags that are specific enough that likely the only people adding them to tags already know better than to lazily click whatever looks close enough, though it looks a bit paddy to have a post with both telecaster and fender_telecaster but I can't think of any other solutions to that at the moment.
I know enough about guitars to write wikis if needed and the BUR but I'll wait until we collectively figure out how we want to go about categorising the tags first.
The goal of this BUR is to decouple common guitar and bass shapes from their originator's model so any guitar that looks like the base can be tagged with the parent tag and if any post has enough detail to specifically point out what model the guitar is then that tag can be used instead.
All models listed in this BUR are common guitar shapes and are uniquely identifiable enough that if drawn with enough detail can be easily pinpointed by the trained eye
Implying specific guitar models to their respective companies.
Even though the company names may be correct, I think they're a bit too long to work as tags, Specifically Fender and Gibson. I think fender_(company) and gibson_(company) would work just as well.
My two cents are that seperating instruments that look almost completely identical is a little silly, I think instead of having it be a case of being stuck between psychederhythm_psychomaster or fender_jazzmaster we should instead split things into company tags for when it can be uniquely identified plus a tag for the general model of the guitar so I would have:
- A Psychederrhytem tag for the company to be applied to their jazzmaster (and any other guitars they make should that become relevant).
- Renaming the Fender Jazzmaster to simply Jazzmaster, and the same for any other model names (like the Fender Stratocaster and Fender Telecaster etc)
This would let people searching for Jazzmasters see posts with the Psychederhythm Psychomaster while retaining the ability to exclusively search for those alone with a search like jazzmaster + psychederrhytem.
It would also solve the awkwardness in tagging posts like post #6665770 (Tagged gibson_flying_v) with that has the shape of a Flying V but can you really be sure it's a Gibson or a Jackson or any other generally V shaped guitar?
I agree that we shouldn't be making multiple tags for essentially identical guitars but I'm not sure if switching from "Manufacturer_ModelName" to just "ModelName" + "Manufacturer" is a good idea. While it would work well enough for better known models you listed, it would also create a bunch of 2-3 letter tags that are nearly identical to each other in name (that would often trigger autocorrect during tagging) but are pretty different visually - let's say Gibson SG vs Yamaha SG/SBG or Ibanez RG vs Yamaha RGX - requiring further tag disambiguation (bringing us back to basically how things are done currently) or having to waste 2 tags in search queries just on guitars alone (not really ideal for us free account folks given the lack of upgrade options). I think they should be left the way they are now, but instead of interpreting Fender Stratocaster as a "Stratocaster model manufactured by Fender" we should treat it more as a common noun-type "Stratocaster-like design, originally made by Fender" and list the prominent clones/derivatives on the wiki page + add the actual manufacturer tag if logo or other way of determening it is present on the image.
Implying specific guitar models to their respective companies.
Yamaha Instruments isn't a real company. If you want to refer to the musical instuments part of Yamaha as a whole it should be yamaha_corporation or yamaha_guitar_development/yamaha_guitar_group (owns YGD, Line6, Ampeg and Guild) for guitars & basses alone. Or just put it under existing yamaha tag.
Yamaha Instruments isn't a real company. If you want to refer to the musical instuments part of Yamaha as a whole it should be yamaha_corporation or yamaha_guitar_development/yamaha_guitar_group (owns YGD, Line6, Ampeg and Guild) for guitars & basses alone. Or just put it under existing yamaha tag.
Yamaha is also the name of a company that makes motorcycle, I chose the name yamaha_instruments keeping in mind both that and the fact they also make keyboards and other things, if there is a better or more accurate term I'll update the BUR.
Yamaha is also the name of a company that makes motorcycle, I chose the name yamaha_instruments keeping in mind both that and the fact they also make keyboards and other things, if there is a better or more accurate term I'll update the BUR.
Ideally Yamaha Corporation (instruments, audio equipment, music software etc.) and Yamaha Motor Company (motorcycles, scooters, boat motors) should be two separate tags as they are now two separate companies and yamaha should be deprecated (or just renamed to motor co. and manually removed from the posts with musical instruments as it's mostly motorcycles).
Three of these are empty. What's the point of those aliases like yamaha_trbx -> yamaha_trb? The autocomplete will already show it by the time you're halfway through typing it.
Implying specific guitar models to their respective companies.
I don't see the point of having an umbrella tag for music makers. It's not like a stratocaster and a flying V look in any way similar, despite being made by the same manifacturer.
I also don't see the point of trying to generalize the tag names and having a special tag for the originals. All the flying Vs are clones of the gibson flying V. See evazion's reply on the matter in forum #166274, which I agree with. I don't think it matters much to us if a stratocaster is made by Fender or any other copycat manifacturer, what we are tagging is the general shape, and "Fender Stratocaster" is the name of that specific guitar shape.
I don't see the point of having an umbrella tag for music makers. It's not like a stratocaster and a flying V look in any way similar, despite being made by the same manifacturer.
I also don't see the point of trying to generalize the tag names and having a special tag for the originals. All the flying Vs are clones of the gibson flying V. See evazion's reply on the matter in forum #166274, which I agree with. I don't think it matters much to us if a stratocaster is made by Fender or any other copycat manifacturer, what we are tagging is the general shape, and "Fender Stratocaster" is the name of that specific guitar shape.
forum #166274 does answer part of the problem, but that does leave the question what the bar is. The Jazzmaster clone in question has a distinctly different pattern of screws, as well as some other minor differences, and these differences are preserved in most fanarts. Would just having (and applying) 2 tags make sense in this case?
Three of these are empty. What's the point of those aliases like yamaha_trbx -> yamaha_trb? The autocomplete will already show it by the time you're halfway through typing it.
I must have forgotten autocorrect existed when I wrote the trbx -> trb part. Gibson SG (bass) is an umbrella term for all SG-shaped basses by Gibson. EB-0, EB-3 and SG Standard Bass are actual model names. I thought making 3 different tags for what is essentially the same thing would be bloating but I still wanted real model names to lead to this single colloquial tag in case an artist leaves the model name in the commentary or on the image itself and someone unfamiliar with instruments has to tag it (SG Standard Bass gets handled by autocorrect). If this precaution is unnecessary then discard those two proposals.
forum #166274 does answer part of the problem, but that does leave the question what the bar is. The Jazzmaster clone in question has a distinctly different pattern of screws, as well as some other minor differences, and these differences are preserved in most fanarts. Would just having (and applying) 2 tags make sense in this case?
That's why i think using the jazzmaster umbrella could be for, as of course a lot of times will and does happen artist simply omit these details that difference both guitars and it becomes very ambiguous what guitar could they be showing in their art, being part of course of this that both guitar are exactly the same aside for those really small details not like by example the Fender Jaguar wich is very visually different from the Jazzmaster and such confusion or ambiguity doesn't exist
