stakes of purgatory was created as an outfit tag, analogous to angel mort but some user has taken to changing it to a character tag and multiple have taken to tagging random images containing one of the girls (post #582261) possibly due to a ambiguous wiki entry. This is really starting to irk me but before I do anything about it do we really just want a catchall tag for 7 people wearing whatever just as long as their name is among a list?
The primary reason I have against things like outfits or even groupings being anything but a general tag is if you do a umineko chartags:2 search you want images with 2 or more characters in the image to show up not a bunch of images with one character and an outfit/group tag.
Log said: The primary reason I have against things like outfits or even groupings being anything but a general tag is if you do a umineko chartags:2 search you want images with 2 or more characters in the image to show up not a bunch of images with one character and an outfit/group tag.
That's kinda thwarted by a lot of seiyuu_joke images, though.
The tag refers specifically to the girls, not the outfit. Same as the Siesta Sisters and Numbers tags.
The reason we have them is that they are minor characters that tend to appear together in images, and being able to find all the images that contain any of them is useful.
Then shouldn't that apply to other group characters such as the Prismriver sisters? I prefer the stakes of purgatory to be a character tag rather then a general tag for the same reasons as Fencedude.
There's only three Prismriver sisters, so its fairly easy to find them with normal searches.
There is no good way of finding ALL images that contain any of the stakes_of_purgatory through a normal search, seeing as how there are 7 of them, and they are in roughly 1/10 of all Umineko images.
Even more so with the numbers which has 12 (well, 13) members, making up 270 out of over 6000 Strikers images.
When it was established it was an outfit tag, when did it become a group tag? When did we start creating group tags? Where do you draw the line, must all the girls appear or do you just implicate all the girls to stakes of purgatory?
I don't like this at all.
sgcdonmai said: That's kinda thwarted by a lot of seiyuu_joke images, though.
There's exceptions sure, seiyuu joke & cosplay most notibly, but in general if you do a chartags:1 search you should get all the images with one character alone and not missing a ton of images because someone insisted that a tag that does not refer to a specific character be character tagtyped.
Edit: Nobody even agrees how to use the numbers tag, there are only 250ish uses but there are 700+ images of the numbers.
I thought it was a character tag from the start but confess I've never searched for it or used it, so I dunno.
We do have other group tags that were never seriously challenged, such as that Nanoha numbers tag mentioned. Whether they've been consistently applied where relevant is a different question.
sgcdonmai said: The history on the wiki for stakes_of_purgatory indicates that it was a character tag from the beginning.
Actually that's why I pointed out "ambiguous wiki entry" it says absolutely nothing about it being a character or outfit tag and originally only images where the girls appeared wearing their outfits had the tag. (Hell, I tagged half of them.)
sgcdonmai said: The history on the wiki for stakes_of_purgatory indicates that it was a character tag from the beginning.
Exactly. I don't see why this is suddenly an issue.
The numbers tag does need to be fixed though. The reason its not fully used is that it seems some people don't know about it. But that doesn't invalidate the tag, does it?
Log said: Actually that's why I pointed out "ambiguous wiki entry" it says absolutely nothing about it being a character or outfit tag and originally only images where the girls appeared wearing their outfits had the tag. (Hell, I tagged half of them.)
You are the only one who's ever suggested that it was originally a costume tag. Your example of angel_mort doesn't work, because there isn't a group called "Angel Mort".
So it was left off of images where the girls aren't wearing their outfits in the beginning because...?
Don't say "because it wasn't known" because that's a bullshit excuse. There were more than 60 images of the stakes before this tag was put into use. You wouldn't pick and choose when establishing a tag.
The original wiki entry is quite clear about making it about the characters, with only a brief reference to the outfit.
And regardless, even if it was originally intended to refer to the outfit, thats not how its used now, and the way its used now is as a general grouping tag, which is a good idea for reasons I outlined earlier.
Do you have a specific objection to the tag being used this way?
Outfit tags are far more useful than group tags. This allows you to find all the images of someone wearing a trademark outfit or wearing something else with an exclusion search. If you need to find an image of all the girls search the most + least popular girls, bam you've got basically all the images of them.
Implicate all the girls to it if you are going to insist on using it as a group tag, I won't argue if it's forced.
umineko if you want to be an ass about it even if you're going to have a shitload of extraneous results.
How often are you going to need that search? I can think of exactly zero cases where I want all images containing any member of a group where I wouldn't just search for a specific character or combination of characters. An outfit at least would let you find post #582261 and post #553630 separate from post #569015 and ...well 80% of images of the stakes.
There are only 3 ways a tag like this should exist: outfit, only images where all the members of a group appear (which can be replicated with the proper search 80% of the time), or all characters implicated to it.
Then make a counterargument for fuck's sake I'm not going to bother arguing my way if you're just going to respond with "no u." Show me a case where I am wrong that is not completely convoluted. vvvv
