alias six_pointed_star -> hexagram

Posted under Tags

trapster77

Confetto said:

It doesn't actually have to be hollow, they just often are. And that is actually formed by two overlapping triangles, one pointing upwards and one pointing downwards. It's inherent to the design.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexagram

who cares what wikipedia says?

so basically since the wiki entry was created in 2009 it says "hollow". i added non-hollow stars in as non-examples in the wiki abiding by what the wiki said. you revert my wiki edit to change the definition from "a hollow" to "an often hollow" ignoring how everyone has been tagging with that understanding for 16 years just because some off site dictionary says "ackshually, any six-pointed star is a hexagram".

i don't think that's a thing you should do. the booru wiki is to help taggers in the booru tag things right. it isn't supposed to be an encyclopedia of facts like the wikipedia. there are some cases people completely ignore what the wiki says because the tag sounds ambiguous. but this isn't the case here. i don't see any non-hollow hexagram in the hexagram tag. it isn't like shade which is used completely wrong almost every time.

but let's say a hexagram isn't necessarily hollow as you wish. now what if i want to search for hollow hexagrams, pentagrams, heptgrams, and star of lakshmi like every single one that appears in any magic circle? are we going to need a separate tag for "hollow stars"? isn't that exactly the same thing as keeping hexagram hollow and using six pointed star for non-hollow stars? wouldn't be way more simpler than just keep hexagram etc. hollow and tell people to use N-pointed stars for the solid ones which is the most intuitive thing possible since any normal person thinks of a hollow star when they hear about these grams?

in fact you would need N-pointed stars anyway since even if it wasn't hollow the triangles need to be equilateral which means a solid star composed of non-equilateral triangles wouldn't be a hexagram even under your definition, which means if people actually used the tag the way you are saying it should be used someone would probably tag a non-equilateral star with hexagram eventually when some terrible artist managed to draw the star wrong because they can't tag it six pointed star as it would be aliased to hexagram now

btw the same thing happened in the refraction tag. this is water refraction

then someone was like "technically this is also refraction"

now it's one tag for 2 things that look completely different but technically have the same wikipedia article and it would be great if we could separate them somehow (topic #33584)

Reply
Confetto

trapster77 said:

who cares what wikipedia says?

so basically since the wiki entry was created in 2009 it says "hollow". i added non-hollow stars in as non-examples in the wiki abiding by what the wiki said. you revert my wiki edit to change the definition from "a hollow" to "an often hollow" ignoring how everyone has been tagging with that understanding for 16 years just because some off site dictionary says "ackshually, any six-pointed star is a hexagram".

i don't think that's a thing you should do. the booru wiki is to help taggers in the booru tag things right. it isn't supposed to be an encyclopedia of facts like the wikipedia. there are some cases people completely ignore what the wiki says because the tag sounds ambiguous. but this isn't the case here. i don't see any non-hollow hexagram in the hexagram tag. it isn't like shade which is used completely wrong almost every time.

but let's say a hexagram isn't necessarily hollow as you wish. now what if i want to search for hollow hexagrams, pentagrams, heptgrams, and star of lakshmi like every single one that appears in any magic circle? are we going to need a separate tag for "hollow stars"? isn't that exactly the same thing as keeping hexagram hollow and using six pointed star for non-hollow stars? wouldn't be way more simpler than just keep hexagram etc. hollow and tell people to use N-pointed stars for the solid ones which is the most intuitive thing possible since any normal person thinks of a hollow star when they hear about these grams?

in fact you would need N-pointed stars anyway since even if it wasn't hollow the triangles need to be equilateral which means a solid star composed of non-equilateral triangles wouldn't be a hexagram even under your definition, which means if people actually used the tag the way you are saying it should be used someone would probably tag a non-equilateral star with hexagram eventually when some terrible artist managed to draw the star wrong because they can't tag it six pointed star as it would be aliased to hexagram now

btw the same thing happened in the refraction tag. this is water refraction

then someone was like "technically this is also refraction"

now it's one tag for 2 things that look completely different but technically have the same wikipedia article and it would be great if we could separate them somehow (topic #33584)

Because the hollow thing was arbitrary and factually incorrect, what the hell difference does it make whether the same shape is filled in or not? This is like arguing we need a different tag for hollow hearts and filled in hearts.

Though if it really came down to it I think "hollow star" would be the better option because it wouldn't require unnecessarily duplicating tags for the same shape, and could cover a variety of types of star shapes.

If you google "six pointed star" you're going to get results entirely about hexagrams, because the distinction you're making doesn't exist in real life. Because it's the same shape, one just isn't filled in.

There is merit to having a tag for say, the unicursal hexagram, since that has a different shape.

Updated by Confetto

Reply
trapster77

Confetto said:

what the hell difference does it make whether the same shape is filled in or not?

now that i think about it, you're right... look at all these cool pentagrams i'll be able to tag once the burs are approved

pentagram hair ornament
flying pentagrams
round pentagrams
background pentagrams
holding a pentagram

i can't wait to start tagging all these pentagrams

Reply
Confetto

trapster77 said:

now that i think about it, you're right... look at all these cool pentagrams i'll be able to tag once the burs are approved

pentagram hair ornament
flying pentagrams
round pentagrams
background pentagrams
holding a pentagram

i can't wait to start tagging all these pentagrams

This is really dumb, five-pointed stars are the default, pentagram isn't comparable to the other -gram tags or their real world usage. No one calls all five-pointed star shapes pentagrams, because they call them stars. "Hexagram", "octagram" and the like are commonly used to refer to the shape.

You are proposing that we double the tags used to refer to the shape of a star depending on if it's filled in or not. Once again, in what way does this benefit anyone? And how do snarky responses like this that ignore my actual points help your argument?

Not to mention that Heptagram, Octagram, Enneagram, Decagram, and Dodecagram have never specified hollowness in their wiki pages. They're just for the shapes of star. Hexagram is the odd one out, not counting pentagram which operates differently because of five-pointed stars being the most common type of star polygon to begin with.

I can't believe I'm arguing about star shapes. This website

Updated by Confetto

Reply
Spatula22

Wikipedia says a hexagram is two intersecting equilateral triangles. A number of the six pointed star posts aren't that, so the alias doesn't make sense.

If these -gram tags are just going to be for the amount of points in a star rather than anything about geometry, the tags should just be "n pointed star".

Reply
trapster77

Confetto said:

This is really dumb, five-pointed stars are the default, pentagram isn't comparable to the other -gram tags or their real world usage. No one calls all five-pointed star shapes pentagrams, because they call them stars. "Hexagram", "octagram" and the like are commonly used to refer to the shape.

You are proposing that we double the tags used to refer to the shape of a star depending on if it's filled in or not. Once again, in what way does this benefit anyone? And how do snarky responses like this that ignore my actual points help your argument?

Not to mention that Heptagram, Octagram, Enneagram, Decagram, and Dodecagram have never specified hollowness in their wiki pages. They're just for the shapes of star. Hexagram is the odd one out, not counting pentagram which operates differently because of five-pointed stars being the most common type of star polygon to begin with.

I can't believe I'm arguing about star shapes. This website

pretty sure nobody bothered to specify because u wouldn't think someone would actually argue a seven-pointed star that is filled should be tagged with heptagram

btw i checked and someone did tag a seven-pointed star with heptagram but that's probably because there was no seven-pointed star they could use

both feel like mistags to me

Reply
zetsubousensei

Spatula22 said:

Wikipedia says a hexagram is two intersecting equilateral triangles. A number of the six pointed star posts aren't that, so the alias doesn't make sense.

Sounds like a lot of overlap with Star of David, which is not just being used contextually for Jewish posts, but for any six pointed star of two intersecting triangles. post #2367896, post #8232798, post #1763401, post #1139005 and loads of magic circle posts like post #952231.

Reply
Spatula22

zetsubousensei said:

Sounds like a lot of overlap with Star of David, which is not just being used contextually for Jewish posts, but for any six pointed star of two intersecting triangles.

That's the thing. Star of David is what I know the shape as, and would have searched to find it. If we folded all six-pointed stars together, Star of David becomes the tag for hollow hexagrams. The context requirement will look silly when a star that looks identical to the Star of David should instead only be tagged less specifically by its number of points.

Anyway, I don't know what people expect from hexagram and the -gram tags. The amount of points a star has gets progressively less notable. But the -gram shapes are interesting from a geometry point-of-view, hence their use in magic circles and such. But right now octagram is filled with any old eight-point star, and this upvoted BUR says that's encouraged, actually.

Reply
1