A Presumed Issue with King Arthur

BUR #40134 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

nuke arthur_pendragon_(romano-british)

@Witch-Hunter-Siegfried created this tag on the 16th, and it was discussed in the unrelated topic #31554, but I'll briefly summarize the presumed issue (and Siegfield is free to add to this with a response below). Siegfried has an issue with the King Arthur (Mythology) tag, where rather than viewing it as a general dumping ground for common (High Medieval/French, Welsh, Romano-British, etc.) and original depictions of the character that don't belong to any one specific copyright, he firmly believes that the tag is intended for the High Medieval interpretation of the character only, thereby creating the tag in the BUR (for post #9157885 in specific). I think this is a gross misreading of the tag and believe that it has no ground to exist as the Mythology chartag would already include this (with at best that version of the character just necessitating the appropriate gentags, such as the scale armor he's wearing... which isn't tagged, nor are two of the other Arthurs present tagged either). If Siegfried's reading is correct (and this BUR rejected), then the King Arthur (Mythology) tag would have to be fractured so that it more narrowly represents which version of mythical Arthur we're discussing here.

Siegfried and I have briefly tag-and-wiki-warred over this, so we're clearly at an impass which requires a proper forum discussion.

Damian0358 said:

BUR #40134 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

nuke arthur_pendragon_(romano-british)

@Witch-Hunter-Siegfried created this tag on the 16th, and it was discussed in the unrelated topic #31554, but I'll briefly summarize the presumed issue (and Siegfield is free to add to this with a response below). Siegfried has an issue with the King Arthur (Mythology) tag, where rather than viewing it as a general dumping ground for common (High Medieval/French, Welsh, Romano-British, etc.) and original depictions of the character that don't belong to any one specific copyright, he firmly believes that the tag is intended for the High Medieval interpretation of the character only, thereby creating the tag in the BUR (for post #9157885 in specific). I think this is a gross misreading of the tag and believe that it has no ground to exist as the Mythology chartag would already include this (with at best that version of the character just necessitating the appropriate gentags, such as the scale armor he's wearing... which isn't tagged, nor are two of the other Arthurs present tagged either). If Siegfried's reading is correct (and this BUR rejected), then the King Arthur (Mythology) tag would have to be fractured so that it more narrowly represents which version of mythical Arthur we're discussing here.

Siegfried and I have briefly tag-and-wiki-warred over this, so we're clearly at an impass which requires a proper forum discussion.

My argument is Romano-British Arthur is a hypothetical origin for the myth, instead of the myth it's self, and thus should be it's own tag, the Warhammer Historical book on that period goes over it https://archive.org/details/warhammer-ancient-battles/Ancient%20Battles%20-%20The%20Age%20Of%20Arthur/

Imma keep it real with you chief
We're not reading a book for danbooru tagging

Witch-Hunter-Siegfried said:

My argument is Romano-British Arthur is a hypothetical origin for the myth, instead of the myth it's self, and thus should be it's own tag, the Warhammer Historical book on that period goes over it https://archive.org/details/warhammer-ancient-battles/Ancient%20Battles%20-%20The%20Age%20Of%20Arthur/

A hypothetical origin for the myth does not separate it from the myth though. The very fact we're hypothesizing about it is squarely because of the myth. This would be like arguing for a tag for Jesus that's focused squarely on the hypothetical real man that inspired the figure that's remembered today in the Bible.

Damian0358 said:

A hypothetical origin for the myth does not separate it from the myth though. The very fact we're hypothesizing about it is squarely because of the myth. This would be like arguing for a tag for Jesus that's focused squarely on the hypothetical real man that inspired the figure that's remembered today in the Bible.

Except unlike that the 2 look completely different

Witch-Hunter-Siegfried said:

Except unlike that the 2 look completely different

And that hasn't been an issue so far for mythology chartags. Like, again, I keep pointing out that Welsh King Arthur also exists, and he looks just as differently to High Medieval/French King Arthur as Romano-British King Arthur. Not to mention, original designs also count for the tag. This is a tag where both post #1775492 and post #3908595 happily co-exist despite their stark differences.

Witch-Hunter-Siegfried said:

Except unlike that the 2 look completely different

We don't know what any of these guys look like for real. Cameras weren't invented until steven jobs invented the applephone, and even historical drawings might a little fudged

Ylimegirl said:

We don't know what any of these guys look like for real. Cameras weren't invented until steven jobs invented the applephone, and even historical drawings might a little fudged

He's not talking about appearance as in their faces, he's talking about generalized depictions (stuff like what armor they would've worn and similar).

Damian0358 said:

He's not talking about appearance as in their faces, he's talking about generalized depictions (stuff like what armor they would've worn and stuff like that).

Even then that's often arbitrary and often based on how people think the past was. Pilgrims didn't wear buckles, vikings didn't have horned helmets, and greco-roman statues were colorfully painted.

Ylimegirl said:

Even then that's often arbitrary and often based on how people think the past was. Pilgrims didn't wear buckles, vikings didn't have horned helmets, and greco-roman statues were colorfully painted.

I don't disagree with this, but given his insistance on invoking the above book, he's being explicit here on it being historically-accurate. Hence my earlier Jesus comparison, since most depictions of Jesus have him be white when he would've had an Eastern Mediterranean complexion (which has become popular in fanart, incidentally, and can be searched via dark-skinned male).

The bulk update request #40134 (forum #348013) has been approved by @nonamethanks.