Tag edit: angel_leotard

I propose editing the angel_leotard tag to angel_leotard_(dq).

I argue for this because the angel leotard is a dragon_quest-exclusive article of clothing, and it would make searching within the wiki or the tag database easier. Other tags, such as the sexy_underwear_(dq), the revealing_swimsuit_(dq), the dancer's_costume_(dq), and the pink_leotard_(dq), all have "_(dq)" at the end of their tags to signify their relationship to Dragon Quest, and it would bring consistency within the tags.

I would do the opposite, removing _(dq) from all the other tags. There is a very low chance of any of those tags ever conflicting with another tag, as long as there's a wiki entry they should be safe.

Log said:
I would do the opposite, removing _(dq) from all the other tags. There is a very low chance of any of those tags ever conflicting with another tag, as long as there's a wiki entry they should be safe.

Objection!
Unqualifying a tag called sexy_underwear or revealing_swimsuit is just asking for abuse. And expecting intelligence of others is just asking for disappointment. Which is why although they should read the wiki I usually assume they won't.

Plugsuit is an Evangelion-specific article of clothing, yet it is not Plugsuit_(NGE).

Just pointing it out, I don't care either way.

Aliasing is unneeded, there aren't any other angel leotards around. Same with plugsuits, everyone knows what a plugsuit is. OTOH, sexy_underwear is in no way related to dq and would be confusing like all hell. Don't go around adding unnecessary qualifiers when there's no conflict, and don't remove them when there is. Just leave things as they are.

葉月: I can't tell what you want to do about sexy_underwear_(dq). If you want to remove the qualifier, be aware that "Sexy Underwear" is a specific item in DQ, like the wiki says.

As I said, I want to do nothing.

Dancer's costume at the very minimum needs no qualifier.

Isn't this a situation where stuff like lingerie dragon_quest does the same job with less complicated tags?

wanchan said:
Isn't this a situation where stuff like lingerie dragon_quest does the same job with less complicated tags?

They're distinctive enough to warrant their own tags (at least, to whomever created the tag/wiki), rather than the more generic tag of lingerie. My argument is for consistency with the DQ-related costumes, and since angel_leotard is the odd-one out, I was hoping for an alias or a mass edit.

Log said:
Dancer's costume at the very minimum needs no qualifier.

You ought to read the wiki for dancer's_costume_(dq). The user Svatopluk was rather detailed as to how a dragon_quest dancer's costume differs from a pic with a generic dancer might have.

I'd approve of the qualifier for consistency's sake. But then I don't have the same aversion to qualifiers that most of the staff do. I mean of course don't use them if there is no reason to, but it makes sense to make all members of a category consistent.

Also as for plugsuit being copyright specific, unqualified, and properly used, that's true now, but previously it was being used for all sorts of bodysuits. Kayako cleaned it up about 5 months ago in forum #7689, and specific rules were agreed upon to keep it clean.

葉月 is right that things like sexy_underwear can't be left unqualified or they will be misused. Angel_leotard may be less likely to be misused but it's also rare enough that a qualifier may be justified just to ensure people understand what the tag is there for at a glance. And again it would keep things consistent.

That's just my opinion though.

Hillside_Moose said:
You ought to read the wiki for dancer's_costume_(dq). The user Svatopluk was rather detailed as to how a dragon_quest dancer's costume differs from a pic with a generic dancer might have.

Note that there are exactly zero other images tagged dancer's_costume, making this argument rather null.

In theory I'm not against standardizing on qualifiers, even if some technically don't *need* them. If we were to go all the way in either direction, I'd rather go all qualifiers than all unqualified.

But if most people prefer the mixed approach, then honestly that's fine too. None of these are tags with a lot of images.

I'm not sure how copyright qualifiers to descriptive tags are a good direction to as the possibilities are endless. If I wanted to see images that featured the specific design of school uniform featued in, say, CCS then searching for card_captor_sakura school_uniform is more intuitive than school_uniform_(ccs). If you were looking for use of that design outside the series itself then you could add cosplay, although in this case the examples I found all seem to be the other way around.

But the specific design of school uniform featured in CCS is still just a school uniform. These tags have specific names in DQ (since it's an RPG, items such as equipment and clothes have names), and furthermore don't look as similar to more generic tags as would, say, the CCS school uniform.

Agreeing with all-qualified, since they're DQ-specific types of what someone unfamiliar may genericifiate. Though a tag wouldn't be had for it, all of these specific costumes would fall under a "DQ equipment" heading. With the other end, plugsuit, the "plug" is recognized as the thing that goes in EVAs (or, in this one pic, Asuka), and the only time I've noticed it misused was on one or few Zero Suit pics (but, though, I don't get around as much).

wanchan said: I'm not sure how copyright qualifiers to descriptive tags are a good direction to as the possibilities are endless.

I think that question leads more to "should we tag these specific costumes at all", rather than whether it's bad to qualify them. Simple fact is, we *don't* tag the vast majority of such copyright-unique clothing items. But if we are allowing the DQ tags (at this point, might as well, it harms nothing), then qualifying isn't a big deal. We're not instating a policy of qualifying all articles of clothing in all series, we're just looking at this one example.

But again, I'm fine with either the current mixed qualify-as-necessary approach or the consistently all-qualified approach. The only one I don't really like is the all unqualified approach.