๐ŸŽ‰ Happy 19th Birthday to Danbooru! ๐ŸŽ‰
Danbooru

Official young versions of Azur boats

Posted under General

Unbreakable said:

Little Bel used to implicate Belfast in the past but it was removed later, so I assume we are keeping them separate.

Over half of them, even when considering solo or 1girl images, are tagged Belfast anyway. And that includes most very recent and manually tagged images. Even if we intended to keep them separate by removing the implication, it seems tagger didn't get the memo or didn't care.

For a similar character from a different copyright, we approved an implication for shun_(small)_(blue_archive) -> shun_(blue_archive) less than a week ago. forum #213594.

Further, the removal of the implication was done during a large bulk BUR based the on the very faulty logic of "none of the other lolified characters do it", which stopped being true shortly after the BUR, ironically. forum #168146.

AKA, like every other gacha, Booba Lane's character tagging is a fucking mess.
I fully expect nothing to be done in this thread as a result.

Veradux said:

Over half of them, even when considering solo or 1girl images, are tagged Belfast anyway. And that includes most very recent and manually tagged images. Even if we intended to keep them separate by removing the implication, it seems tagger didn't get the memo or didn't care.

For a similar character from a different copyright, we approved an implication for shun_(small)_(blue_archive) -> shun_(blue_archive) less than a week ago. forum #213594.

Shun (small) and Shun are literally the same person, the Azur Lane ships and their child versions are not.

Looking around, it seems like this is a problem specific to Little Bel, the rest of the child ships don't seem to have this problem at all. In fact, the most recent Belfast_(azur_lane) little_bel_(azur_lane) 1girl post is from 11 months ago, and the most recent post to have belfast (azur lane) removed was uploaded 7 months ago. I can't find any more recent mistags than that, and I checked the dates of the first page of that search, and everything from post #4032112 and on were uploaded before that BUR was approved, meaning they just never got cleaned up.

So there's not actually some big Little Bel tagging problem like you suggest. Just a lot of old posts that need to be gardened.

Further, the removal of the implication was done during a large bulk BUR based the on the very faulty logic of "none of the other lolified characters do it", which stopped being true shortly after the BUR, ironically. forum #168146.

I'm not even sure what this is talking about, because no other child ship implicates the original ship.

Yeah makes sense. Something like Little Illustrious that had quite a few regular Illustrious added early on, latest small ships barely had any original ships tags.

Unlike something like meta ships. They almost always seem to include originals. Same with muse ships. IIRC muse boats really are the same character as original, just temporary having some fun.

So, unlike with little ships, I suggest doing a BUR for all the muse and meta characters

Updated

1