Ships: Character or General tag?

So I've been creating a list of ships to complement the List of Airplanes and List of Ground Vehicles wikis, and I noticed that there is no consistency on whether a named ship should be a character or a general tag. When I say named ship, I mean the actual ship itself and not some copyrighted version of it (i.e. Kantai Collection, Aoki Hagane no Arpeggio, etc), although original anthropomorphisms are fine.

Since each ship is a singular instance, I could see the character tag being applicable. We already give the character tag to certain inanimate objects, such as the devices from Lyrical Nanoha and Boko from Girls und Panzer, to name a few.

But, it could also be a general tag, which would make it more like the other vehicle tags, plus there would be less clutter in the list of characters on each image post.

Thoughts?

I'm in favor of them being "character" tags, or as how I have been saying in the past renaming the category to (unique/specific) "identities" or something similar.

Although I've wished to expand and have sub-categories for the "character" category as well, so that unique named locations and other objects could be fit in without blotting out people. Even if the sub-categories merely impacted the ordering of the tags in the category instead of having their own titles, particularly placing people first, object/vehicles second, and places last.

I'm still against char-tagging ships and planes for the same reason we stopping copy-tagging brands like Coca-Cola and Pocky; it's just noise against the backdrop of what people consider "real" characters, with personalities and unique appearances. Speaking of which...

BrokenEagle98 said:

We already give the character tag to certain inanimate objects, such as the devices from Lyrical Nanoha and Boko from Girls und Panzer, to name a few.

The devices get char-tagged because they speak and have personalities, and the teddy bear is apparently a character from a series-within-a-series.

We could petition Albert for a fourth category for specific objects like named tanks and planes. I suggest amber-colored tags.

Actually I had requested awhile ago the creation of a fourth category, at the time it didn't get anywhere. I think tagging them general is incorrect, as they're tags that indicate unique or specific identities present in the image and that is much more like a character tag than a general tag like say car, clock, or warship. Burying them in the mass of blue tags isn't very helpful.

Just thought I'd link what NWF_Renim is referencing for others situational awareness (issue #2358).

Little thought experiment (feel free to ignore):

A Tiger tank is a non-unique inanimate object. Its identifier is a model name or a brand name. The Bismarck battleship is also a non-unique inanimate object, but it carries a "unique" ship name. The ship is getting personified in a ceremony we call Schiffstaufe (ship christening / baptizing) in Germany. The same is true for the Panzerkampfwagen IV that is called "Anglerfish" in the Girls und Panzer anime. However, Bismarck and Anglerfish are still non-unique inanimate objects. They are not unique because they can be replaced. Additionally, both are inanimate because they have neither a character or memory nor do they reproduce, evolve or respond to stimuli. With the i-401 submarine in Aoki Hagane no Arpeggio the situation is arguably different. The very advanced AI-like avatar called Iona is deeply connected with the ship's electronics. Iona brings the i-401 submarine to life and makes it a little bit more unique than the Bismarck battleship. It's more unique because from today's viewpoint it houses a very complex AI or Avatar (magical and supernatural phenomenons excluded). However, with the right knowledge and tools someone could easily construct a second i-401 and copy over Ioan's personality/character and all of her memories. There now exist two exact same copies of the i-401 (+ Iona) entity. Of course, we can also extend this thought experiment to include biological beings. If we were able to create an exact copy of a person in the future (same character + same memories), then this would rise the following questions: "Can we even call a person or character "unique"?" & "Can we be sure that a unique entity will always stay unique?" & "What is singularity in the first place?"

A rebuttal to that comes from a series I recently watched, One Piece (spoilers from the Water 7 Saga below, so read with caution)

Similar is the transporter scenario, i.e. if someone is deconstructed at one location, and reconstructed at a different location with different matter, is the original person now dead or alive?

BrokenEagle98 said:

A rebuttal to that comes from a series I recently watched, One Piece (spoilers from the Water 7 Saga below, so read with caution)

In that series, the Going Merry has become more and more run down. It is looked at by expert shipwrights at Water 7, who proclaim that the ship is no longer fixable since the keel is almost broken. They say that the ship could not be replaced because even if everything was meticulously duplicated in creating another ship, it would not be the same ship and those that love the ship the most, the Strawhat Pirates, would notice the difference the most.

Similar is the transporter scenario, i.e. if someone is deconstructed at one location, and reconstructed at a different location with different matter, is the original person now dead or alive?

@ Going Merry scenario:

@ Transporter scenario:

In my opinion, the original person is still alive because with perfect recreation on an atomic level no one (not even the person itself) could tell the difference.

reiyasona said:

@ Transporter scenario:

In my opinion, the original person is still alive because with perfect recreation on an atomic level no one (not even the person itself) could tell the difference.

Yeah, though that makes a few assumptions, like the fact that the only thing that makes us who we are is the physically observable matter that makes up our beings. However, that disregards any other interactions at the quantum level that we don't know about yet, or interactions outside our three dimensional observable space, all of which we may not be able to replicate but which could play a critical role in the existence of our consciousnesses.

Even disregarding all that, it would be impossible to perfectly replicate someone atomically due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Star Trek had to invent some bull**** Heisenberg Compensator to account for that discrepancy.

BrokenEagle98 said:

However, that disregards any other interactions at the quantum level that we don't know about yet, or interactions outside our three dimensional observable space, all of which we may not be able to replicate but which could play a critical role in the existence of our consciousnesses.

You are right. When we consider fundamental particles and multiverse theories, nothing seems to be set in stone.

BrokenEagle98 said:

Even disregarding all that, it would be impossible to perfectly replicate someone atomically due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Star Trek had to invent some bull**** Heisenberg Compensator to account for that discrepancy.

Good point! post #1295530 ^^

BACK TO THE TOPIC!

While reading through the discussion on GitHub, I gathered the following ideas:

• [1] Create new top level tag types called "vehicles", "locations" and "characters".
• [2] Transform the "characters" tag type into a more general "identities" tag type. Create subgroups called "vehicles", "locations" and "characters".
• [3] Leave everything as it is.

ATM I am torn between approach 2 and 3. Approach 1 is creating too much clutter, in my opinion. Approach 2 is more complex, but could also prove itself to be more flexible and extensible in the future.

reiyasona said:

• [2] Transform the "characters" tag type into a more general "identities" tag type. Create subgroups called "vehicles", "locations" and "characters".

How would that even work?

I don't even know how sub-categories could be visually represented in the posts, besides making them all different colors. However, then you get the clutter like the [1] you talked about.

reiyasona said:

BACK TO THE TOPIC!

While reading through the discussion on GitHub, I gathered the following ideas:

• [1] Create new top level tag types called "vehicles", "locations" and "characters".
• [2] Transform the "characters" tag type into a more general "identities" tag type. Create subgroups called "vehicles", "locations" and "characters".
• [3] Leave everything as it is.

ATM I am torn between approach 2 and 3. Approach 1 is creating too much clutter, in my opinion. Approach 2 is more complex, but could also prove itself to be more flexible and extensible in the future.

I feel like the most straightforward solution is to just create a catch-all fifth tag type that sits above general in the sidebar encompassing all of the proper noun-y sort of things that don't really fit in their current tag spots. Named vehicles, specific locations, named weapons and items, specific costume tags, currently general specific character cosplay tags, currently copyright generic brand tags, extraneous character tags that are mostly just costumes like the Sword Art Online ones.

Most pictures won't have so many of these that they need more specific categorization, and giving them their own tag type pulls up the more relevant ones from getting lost in a sea of 30 general tags while also pulling down the ones that are just noise to the copyright and character sections.

Obviously there'd be edge cases and the inclusion of some of these are more arguable than others, but it seems like a good start.

BrokenEagle98 said:

How would that even work?

I don't even know how sub-categories could be visually represented in the posts, besides making them all different colors. However, then you get the clutter like the [1] you talked about.

NWF_Renim said:

Even if the sub-categories merely impacted the ordering of the tags in the category instead of having their own titles, particularly placing people first, object/vehicles second, and places last.

Specially one way of doing it would be simply have the main category first ordered by subcategory and each subcategory ordered alphabetically.

Something like post #2325329 for example instead of having it like this:

• Characters
• Assam
• Darjeeling
• Orange Pekoe
• Rosehip

• Tags
• 4girls
• Churchill (tank)
• Crusader (tank)
• Ground Vehicle
• Jacket
• Matilda (tank)
• Tank

Would become:

• Identities
• Assam
• Darjeeling
• Orange Pekoe
• Rosehip
• Churchill (tank)
• Crusader (tank)
• Matilda (tank)

• Tags
• 4girls
• Ground Vehicle
• Jacket
• Tank

Note this also applies to things that have specific names and models like guns, planes, and other vehicles with specific models. We'll also have to be careful tagging anything that's mecha musume or like Upotte where there are characters who are also models of objects and holding their non-animate selves.

I'm in favour of creating a new category (or subcategory) for inanimate objects with unique identities, but I don't think it should cover whole classes of tanks, planes or ships. Especially for tanks and planes, there were often hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands built, with any one no different than any other. I think the new category should only apply to objects with a unique identity, such as those that are named or otherwise individual. An otherwise unidentified Panzer IV might be any of over 8000, while the Panzer IV from Girls und Panzer is an individual tank with a unique history.

Blue_Trident said:

I'm in favour of creating a new category (or subcategory) for inanimate objects with unique identities, but I don't think it should cover whole classes of tanks, planes or ships. Especially for tanks and planes, there were often hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands built, with any one no different than any other. I think the new category should only apply to objects with a unique identity, such as those that are named or otherwise individual. An otherwise unidentified Panzer IV might be any of over 8000, while the Panzer IV from Girls und Panzer is an individual tank with a unique history.

Going to disagree, as that approach would force spawning unnecessary tags to cover those that would fall into the new category and those that don't. It tries to be middle of the road and results in causing more problems than resolving because of it.

It should cover things regardless of quantity made, as it should refer to a specific unique form as opposed to a unique individual. Not all characters are unique individuals, and in a few cases hundreds and even thousands of such "individuals" exist.

Blue_Trident said:

I'm in favour of creating a new category (or subcategory) for inanimate objects with unique identities, but I don't think it should cover whole classes of tanks, planes or ships. Especially for tanks and planes, there were often hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands built, with any one no different than any other. I think the new category should only apply to objects with a unique identity, such as those that are named or otherwise individual. An otherwise unidentified Panzer IV might be any of over 8000, while the Panzer IV from Girls und Panzer is an individual tank with a unique history.

Why would we need to identify THAT specific tank? The thing that made it special was the crew, and it wasn't unique the way a super robot is. Those have character tags for a reason - a tank is a tank, unless it's a living tank which has a speaking role. A person unfamiliar (or familiar ) with GuP would search for the Panzer IV, not Anglerfish_Panzer_IV.

It's ultimately no more unique than any other vehicle, as even their upgrades were to another operational spec versus being completely unique like Karen Joshua's GM Head RX-78[G]. If we're searching for an anime with tanks, then we're using the tank model and other criteria (like character names or other tank types) and not specifically for a tank which one appeared in this anime.

I threw up a first rough-draft wiki for List of ships. It only includes the United States military ships so far, and I copy/pasted a lot over from List of airplanes, but it gives a general idea of the organizational format.

I want to know what others think though before I throw in the other countries' ships. This includes looks, ordering, or anything else that might be important.

Edit:
Also, until/unless a 5th tag category gets created, should I leave everything jumbled between character/general, or should I standardize ships one way or the other?