Posted under General
Should we have a pool for 4 or more destroyers of the same class put in one picture?
Like the posts listed below:
post #1642396
post #1700213
post #1792867
post #1759448
post #1703019
post #1777714
And of course, the ever popular Akatsuki-class.
I know it can be covered by a multiple character tags search but we have pool #2353.
I'm personally against things like pool #2353 and pool #2233, but if we allow those, I guess there's no reason not to allow this one.
Or we could extend the definition of everyone tag, since combination tag of 4girls everyone somehow doesn't work well with a series that has a lot of characters (especially series like touhou, idolmaster and kancolle.)
Or we also could separate group from everyone and use the group tag to cover these pools.
Or introduce new tags such as clique or in_group that can be used to cover them.
In short, the everyone is still not enough to cover these pools since these are referring to specific groups where is everyone tag is used if all or most of the characters are present from a certain series in a single picture.
Updated
Lunatic6 said:
Or we could extend the definition of everyone tag, since combination tag of 4girls everyone somehow doesn't work well with a series that has a lot of characters (especially series like touhou, idolmaster and kancolle.)
I use everyone for images featuring all characters of a specific touhou game, so you can for example search for the_embodiment_of_scarlet_devil everyone -absolutely_everyone.
This fits the definition of everyone since they're all from the same game, but is not really applicable to kancolle. (but maybe for idolmaster)
the_embodiment_of_scarlet_devil everyone -absolutely_everyone is covered by a specific copyright tag. I was referring if we could have a tag for specific group of characters (e.g. a group of Stage 1 bosses, a group of destroyers in the same class) or we just leave pool #2353 and pool #2233 alone while I create another pool for the destroyer-classes.
Lunatic6 said:
I was referring if we could have a tag for specific group of characters (e.g. a group of Stage 1 bosses, a group of destroyers in the same class) or we just leave pool #2353 and pool #2233 alone while I create another pool for the destroyer-classes.
It seems we already have a tag like this (team_9), but we also have pools for other groups of characters, so currently it's pretty inconsistent.
I don't really see the point of having any pool or tag that simply replaces a tag search. If it's necessary to have them though, a more general tag like those that were suggested previously might be the simplest and most clutter-free way to do it, since it could replace all the character pools like those in the first group in pool group:touhou as well as character-specific tags like team_9.
+1 on Lunatic6's clique idea. It can replace pool #2353, pool #2233, team_9, and more.
Fred1515 said:
I don't really see the point of having any pool or tag that simply replaces a tag search.
One reason that gets brought up is that basic users can only search 2 tags max. I don't quite agree with it, but that seems to be the major argument.
+1 for clique. I wouldn't even be opposed to tags for specific cliques (team_9_(clique), stages_gathering_(clique), destroyers_(kantai_collection)_(clique), whatever). I just hate the proliferation of pools for things that can very easily be tags.
If we're going with a new tag, for the naming of the tag could it be kept in line with other *_connection tags? A suggestion might be "class_connection," since that could cover the bulk of these things: boss-class character, player-class characters, mid-boss class character, knight class characters, battleship class characters, Akatsuki class characters, etc.
That's a good idea, though things like pool #1779 don't really seem to fit in a "class". Maybe something like character or trait_connection?
Edit: Nvm, that pool has been deleted. A name like character_trait_connection still sounds a bit more intuitive to me though.
Updated
The trait_connection tag already exists, but for "crossover, cosplay or parody image clearly depicting two or more characters who share the same or closely similar personality traits, or have similar circumstances occur to them in their respective stories." Using the pre-existing tag would imo fill it with noisy, and having it named "character_trait_connection" still makes it sound too similar and confusing with the existing trait connection tag.
I didn't know that tag existed. People do seem to occasionally use it just like the proposed clique tag for things that don't have their own pools though (e.g. post #1611506, post #1620277, etc.) so I'm not sure if a new tag would cause less confusion. Trait_connection sounds exactly like the kind of thing we're looking to tag anyway.
...or we could just use clique and be done with it.
Basically, the arguments are "if Touhou can, why KanColl not", well, that is pretty inconsistent. In the other hand, all of the pools can be tags, so, thats an invalid argument (Exceptions: Doujinshis).
But, since KanColl has a new context (Very new context, 2013 practically, and compete with Touhou, Idolmaster, LL! SIP), we don't know how will progress the works of the artist. We can try with a tag, but I still prefer to wait until create more pools with that classification.
Updated
NWF_Renim said:
If we're going with a new tag, for the naming of the tag could it be kept in line with other *_connection tags? A suggestion might be "class_connection," since that could cover the bulk of these things: boss-class character, player-class characters, mid-boss class character, knight class characters, battleship class characters, Akatsuki class characters, etc.
But *_connection tags are exclusive for parodies and crossovers, and I think class_connection is already similar with trait_connection (post #1275985).
The focus of the clique tag is not a group of characters that having a common trait but characters that are belong to a specific group.
Lunatic6 said:
The focus of the clique tag is not a group of characters that having a common trait but characters that are belong to a specific group.
And they belong usually to that specific group because they share a common element, particularly their class type. Outside of like team 9, all the other groupings pretty much have a unifying element that unites them. Your grouping of the destroyer girls is because they're all destroyers. The grouping of stages bosses is because they're all from the same stage. The grouping of player characters is because they all were player characters.
Lunatic6 said:
But *_connection tags are exclusive for parodies and crossovers, [...]
That can't be true (and if it is worded that way, it is wrong), since something like color_connection should be equally applicable to any image of only touhou characters with similar colors. The connections can be within the same series, it doesn't have to refer to parodies and crossovers.
Updated
NWF_Renim said:
That can't be true (and if it is worded that way, it is wrong), since something like color_connection should be equally applicable to any image of only touhou characters with similar colors. The connections can be within the same series, it doesn't have to refer to parodies and crossovers.
Yeah I admit that I was wrong on this one, since we can used seiyuu_connection within a same copyright if that seiyuu is voicing two or more characters (post #1785861).
NWF_Renim said:
And they belong usually to that specific group because they share a common element, particularly their class type. Outside of like team 9, all the other groupings pretty much have a unifying element that unites them. Your grouping of the destroyer girls is because they're all destroyers. The grouping of stages bosses is because they're all from the same stage. The grouping of player characters is because they all were player characters.
post #1780875, post #1785509, etc. are one possible KanColle clique to which that doesn't apply. Yukikaze and Yahagi escorted Yamato during Operation Ten-Go, during which the latter two were sunk. I think participating in the same naval operation would stretch the definition of "common trait."
Then what about this, we use the clique tag as a general tag for every specific group of every series. Then we can have a about:clique page so that we could list down every possible specific groups, including its possible members, that will be covered by this tag.
7HS said:
post #1780875, post #1785509, etc. are one possible KanColle clique to which that doesn't apply. Yukikaze and Yahagi escorted Yamato during Operation Ten-Go, during which the latter two were sunk. I think participating in the same naval operation would stretch the definition of "common trait."
I used the term "element" not "trait," and no it isn't a stretch in my wording given that they're together because of a historical connection (ie the element that unifies this grouping). All you're achieving with that argument in my opinion is that a new historical_connection tag would be appropriate.
Lunatic6 said:
Then what about this, we use the clique tag as a general tag for every specific group of every series. Then we can have a about:clique page so that we could list down every possible specific groups, including its possible members, that will be covered by this tag.
If the the suggestion "class_connection" throws you off, then how about wording it "group_connection" or "clique_connection" (honestly, I thought I left it open asking for suggestions on naming, all I was primarily asking for what it had _connection in the name to follow other grouping tags).
I'm a bit left questioning over the value of this tag though. All these groups were created based on a connection, historical, stage, class, color, and etc, so why is the grouping itself important, when an alternative connection tag would cover the concept of why they're linked and placed together in the image. Even team 9 at its core is stage boss connection.
