Tag Implication: Remilia_Scarlet/Flandre_Scarlet -> vampire

Implicating both remilia scarlet and flandre scarlet -> vampire

Reason: Not only *are* they vampires, but people inconsistently (and seemingly arbitrarily) tag them with vampire as it is.

We don't implicate character traits to characters. Ever.

Also, vampire should really be used only when a character is acting remarkably vampire-ish, not in every appearance of the character regardless of what they are doing.

I don't know about this. Wouldn't an alternative reality where they are in a realistic setting make them not vampires? Just as an example where the implication would be problematic. So a "no" to the implication itself.

However!

I would furthermore suggest that vampire is a bit of a weird tag, and should only really be used if it's obvious from the image that the character is, in fact, a vampire (whether it be fangs or red eyes or whatever else is overtly vampire-like). I didn't tag post #642649 with vampire, for example...

Then again, we have tags that work canonically, such as siblings... And I would defend that tag. And even its retarded brother (pun intended) incest.

I'd like to hear more thoughts on the subject.

EDIT: I see that while I was messing around with this post, Fencedude posted the same thing, just shorter and better. Maybe I am too wordy, after all.

I agree, vampire should definitely only apply to images depicting vampire characteristics (e.g. drinking blood, baring fangs, sun damage, etc.). The wiki should probably be rewritten to reflect this.

Also, while siblings requires a exception for some situations, I don't think it's necessary for vampire.

Fencedude said:
We don't implicate character traits to characters. Ever.

Also, vampire should really be used only when a character is acting remarkably vampire-ish, not in every appearance of the character regardless of what they are doing.

This, on both counts.

Fencedude said:
character traits to characters

jxh2154 said:
This

Come on, guys. Is it really that hard to remember which way the arrows point?

And I got it right.

Draw the logic tree.

vampire is the character trait, remilia scarlet is the character. Implicating "character traits to characters" would in this case entail implicating vampire to remilia scarlet, i.e. positing that any post which satisfied the predicate "is appropriate to be tagged as vampire" should consequently satisfy the predicate "is appropriate to be tagged as remilia scarlet". This is obviously nonsensical and is not under debate, nor is it what the OP requested.

The character trait (vampire) is implicated to the character (Remilia). Which is what I said, and what the OP requested.

Could be read either way. I would have gone with "we don't make implications involving characters" personally but welp.

You're misunderstanding, Fencedude. Let's look at another implication. You'd say "4koma" is implicated to "comic" yes? Because being a 4koma implies being a comic. So "vampire" implicated to "Remilia Scarlet" means that being a vampire implies being Remilia Scarlet. It should be that the character is implicated to the trait, as the OP posted.

Fencedude is probably confused between "implicated to" and "implied by". The latter is logic terminology, and the former is a back-formation from the word "implication" which is used to describe a semantic relationship between two tags on danbooru.

Then what about witch?

Yes, what about it?

If you're referring to traits, then what must apply to pics when it comes to tagging a witch?

unicogirl said:
If you're referring to traits, then what must apply to pics when it comes to tagging a witch?

...Does she weigh the same as a duck?

Just from quickly looking it seems the traits most people use are: presence of broom, wand, or staff; character is female; character has a pointy hat.

Though not all pointy hats are witch hats, we tried to define awhile ago that wizard_hat would be for pointy hats without a brim. Lillet Blan's hat is a good example of this.

Anyways, I'm drastically departing from the main topic.

Uhh, if there's a witch tag definition-related issue, it should probably be taken-up in another thread instead.

eidolon said:
I agree, vampire should definitely only apply to images depicting vampire characteristics (e.g. drinking blood, baring fangs, sun damage, etc.). The wiki should probably be rewritten to reflect this.

Is there really enough incorrectly tagged images out there? I would say 99/100 when a character who is also a vampire usually has at least one characteristic.

Changing direction a bit what about a comic series where character traits might not be the same from one page to another? That is what would you do if you had a situation where on one page Remilia was show with wings and on the next page they were hidden from view.

Would you tag her with vampire because you did on the previous page, or would you tag each page as if they were a single independent image?

Siegmund said: or would you tag each page as if they were a single independent image?

This.