Tag Alias: apocalypse_(event) <-> armageddon

Aliasing or moving apocalypse_(event) <-> armageddon.

Reason: Currently mean the same thing.

While we're at it, actually, a qualifier seems pretty unnecessary. The vanilla apocalypse tag is currently being used for the marvel character who has a total of 3 images, two of which are deleted. There's no sense in reserving it for such an underused tag, so I'm going to just add a (marvel) qualifier.

But, anyway, with that said we could also just not bother with an alias for apocalypse_(event) and pretend that it never existed. It's only 5 images so an edit is no trouble at all. We should definitely still alias armageddon and apocalypse to one thing though, since they are such similar terms. Assuming these tags are specifically for the end of days actively taking place, they could both be aliased to "apocalyptic_event" instead. It would match nicely with post-apocalyptic.

Edit: Actually, that's only a total of 2 apocalypse_(marvel) images. One of them was a mistagged apocalypse_(event) post.

Might throw ragnarok in as well.

I think end_of_the_world should be used for scenes depicting massive calamitous events wiping out everything or nearly everything, while the current definition of end_of_the_world would go better with a tag name of edge_of_the_world. For the specific Grandia location which is currently the images under the tag, they could be moved to end_of_the_world_(grandia) or moved to just a grandia wall tag combination.

throwing in the_end too. i also think this should be qualified to the_end_(metal_gear) . do we alias plain the_end to armageddon too or leave it empty?

I was fine with end_of_the_world as is, but the disambiguation makes sense. I think it should just be aliased to apocalyptic_event like the other similar terms, though.

As for the_end, I don't think it really matters. It's such an ambiguous term I don't think it's really fit to be aliased to apocalypse. I can't imagine what else it would be used for, either, other than pictures that specifically mention "the end" like in the last page of a comic, but I don't know how useful that would even be. Without any other uses a qualifier is kind of pointless, so unless there's a good reason I think it should stay as is.

Alternatively you could name it cataclysmic_event instead of apocalyptic_event.

Yeah, but then it wouldn't match up with the previously mentioned tag post-apocalyptic.

I personally don't think it has to match up, given that such events do not necessarily have to generate the stereotypical ruins of civilization "post-apocalyptic" look. The scene could very well be a depiction of a meteorite wiping out the dinosaurs.

Schrobby said:
Might throw ragnarok in as well.

Independent from the rest, I say no to this one. Ragnarok isn't just a generic world ending, it's the world ending because of the Norse Gods duking it out. If there are't valkyries, fire giants, huge tree-eating worms and so on, it's not Ragnarok. It would not be appropriate to automatically lump it together with any apocalyptic scenario.

NWF_Renim said:
I personally don't think it has to match up, given that such events do not necessarily have to generate the stereotypical ruins of civilization "post-apocalyptic" look. The scene could very well be a depiction of a meteorite wiping out the dinosaurs.

I don't think that there's any implication that there has to be a city involved. The term is often used to describe the end of man, but it can just as easily be used to refer to the end of the world, as well.

They don't have to match up, but they're pretty closely related tags so I don't see why not.

Rampardos said:
I don't think that there's any implication that there has to be a city involved. The term is often used to describe the end of man, but it can just as easily be used to refer to the end of the world, as well.

Given that post-apocalyptic is defined by having to have the ruins of civilization, particularly modern and futuristic, wouldn't trying to name this tag closer to it actually be a negative thing? This tag does not carry the same meaning or restrictions, so naming it closer to the other doesn't really gain us anything.

Cataclysm is a better term, as it does not carry with it the connotations of "the end of man/era" or "final decisive battle."

There is also catastrophe, so alternatively could use "catastrophic_event."

If you want to get really specific, you could also argue that those terms could just to refer a particularly large-scale disaster, where it's clear that "apocalyptic" is the end of something, man or otherwise.

I really don't think the connotation is strong enough to matter. What it could arguably lose is easily made up for by being a common and easily understood term that I think most people would think of first when thinking of the end of the world; which is why it was one of the original tags to begin with.

We're aliasing these things together, anyway, so it won't actually cause any confusion if someone's really unhappy with apocalypse being used to refer to more than just the end of man. Having similar names makes them easier to find in a wiki search, too.

Given that the images will cover very different visual concepts, one tag is a subset of ruins and the other covering a large scale disaster depictions. Having them share the same naming scheme doesn't serve any purpose. Additionally by having the other tags aliased to it defeats the importance of keeping the same naming scheme, as just plugging in the alternatives will give this name. Also regardless of the name it will be in the wiki for post-apocalyptic, so in the end there isn't a strong argument for trying to keep it in the same naming scheme.

A search in the wiki will bring up any wiki that has the word you're searching for, so if we included the alternative names under the wiki it will still be brought up when you search for a specific word, such as apocalypse. It is highly unlikely words such as apocalypse will be common enough in usage that when performing a wiki search, that it would come up with more than one page of wiki entries. Given that post-apocalyptic begins with a "p" and what you're suggesting begins with an "a," if "Apocalypse" was common enough that having to keep the tag names similar was important, they still would not appear near each other in the results list.

Anyways I think your argument on scale only serves to show that cataclysm and catastrophe are more appropriate in the end. The images depicted are large scale disasters, but the scale of which can be as small as the destruction of an entire city/landscape or as large as a star going supernova (even the destruction of the universe). Apocalypse, armageddon, and even ragnarok refer more to events that are more on a world wide change. The end of the current world and usually the beginning of the next. They also tend to have a built in understanding that these are events that are typically impacting of civilization. The destruction of the current world of man/civilization. Cataclysm and catastrophe on the other hand simply refer to any massively destructive event that causes change with no necessary impact on civilization or people.

Hypothetical examples:

• The destruction of a city: both catastrophic/cataclysmic and apocalyptic.
• The destruction of a planet by a supernova: both catastrophic/cataclysmic and apocalyptic
• The destruction of a space station by a supernova: catastrophic/cataclysmic, but is it apocalyptic?
• A large explosion destroying the arm of a galaxy: catastrophic/cataclysmic, but is it apocalyptic?

Yeah, I understand the definitions. The differences in definition really don't matter, though. They overlap in all the areas that matter.

It's really not important which tag is the main tag, or if it has any similarity to any other existing tag, but seeing as both post-apocalyptic and apocalyptic_event deal in disasters, I thought it would be nice if they shared a similar name. That doesn't mean they have to actually and literally be the same.

There's really no strong argument for either direction, it's just a matter of taste. My preference is still for apocalyptic_event.

Ephyon said:
Ragnarok isn't just a generic world ending

I agree, but neither are apocalypse or Armageddon. Apocalypse, or ἀποκάλυψις rather, just means revelation, the word, in and of itself, has nothing to do with the end times. It's just that it's been conflated with the end of the world due in the Book of Revelation (Apocalypse of John). Similarly Armageddon's root is הַר מְגִדּוֹ‎, which means Mount Megiddo, which in the Book of Revelation is said to be the the place where the Messiah, the Beast, and the Devil will fight each other. There seems to be similar beliefs in Ahmadiyya and Bahá'í, but knowing nothing about either of those faiths I'm not comfortable commenting on them.

I realize I'm probably just pissing in the wind here since these two words meanings have become so misunderstood that it's probably not useful to try and conform our tagging to reflect their actual meanings. Still I felt I needed to at least bring it up.

At any rate my vote is for end_of_the_world, as that can pretty much only mean the end of the world. Though I suppose "end" could mean a lot of different things.

ShadowbladeEdge said:
I realize I'm probably just pissing in the wind here

Mostly, yes. I knew all that. The point is that Armageddon and Apocalypse have culturaly become synonymous with "shit's all going to hell" to the point that Apocalyptic is a recognized adjective, whereas "Ragnarok" is still largely considered norse-specific and not as interchangeable. It's easy to imagine a comet blasting the Earth as being called "apocalypse" now, not so much Ragnarok.

Ragnarok is the norse end of the world, Armageddon is the christian equivalent.

Apocalypse is the the only generic one, even if it really means something else.

I'm just aliasing apocalypse_(event) -> apocalypse for now. That word is the the most neutral. I'll leave the more specific noes alone for now, but we can probably implicate.