Crystal Gem forms

BUR #45566 has been rejected.

create implication amethyst_(first_form)_(steven_universe) -> amethyst_(steven_universe)
create implication amethyst_(second_form)_(steven_universe) -> amethyst_(steven_universe)
create implication amethyst_(third_form)_(steven_universe) -> amethyst_(steven_universe)
create implication amethyst_(fourth_form)_(steven_universe) -> amethyst_(steven_universe)
create implication 80s_amethyst -> amethyst_(steven_universe)

These are all different forms/costumes Amethyst has in the show.

I am very, very mixed on these. My base gut reaction is to say that these shouldn't be tags to begin with, following on the case of Padme Amidala in forum #312105. Of course, it's not as egregious as making 13 costume tags for a character that only had 82 posts, but 5 costume tags for a character that only has 95 posts could be considered similar enough. Obviously, as someone who is in the depths of costume tagging debate, it wouldn't be fair of me to say that when that's the status quo for the copytags where maximalist tagging is normalized (invoking my example from forum #272658, EM-2 (Girls' Frontline) has 3 costume tags and 25 posts total, which is similarly egregious). So the main issue is this then: do we want to normalize the spread of costume tagging to TV shows?

As we speak, we're deliberating on this in regards to comic book characters outside of games in topic #32808 as well, and recent discussions have indicated that people do want to constrain the spread of costume tags, so the answer seems to clearly be no, but what about the variant chartags that got approved for Adventure Time? If those were fine, why isn't this? At minimum, that justifies 80s Amethyst's existence. But the rest are more questionable.

I'm refraining from voting because I've not seen all of SU and don't think my opinion on the individual costumes matters.

That being said I agree with Damian and think that much like the Padme example listed this tag is so small 5 costumes seems like an overkill, especially when as an outsider they look near identical.

Damian0358 said:

I am very, very mixed on these. My base gut reaction is to say that these shouldn't be tags to begin with, following on the case of Padme Amidala in forum #312105. Of course, it's not as egregious as making 13 costume tags for a character that only had 82 posts, but 5 costume tags for a character that only has 95 posts could be considered similar enough. Obviously, as someone who is in the depths of costume tagging debate, it wouldn't be fair of me to say that when that's the status quo for the copytags where maximalist tagging is normalized (invoking my example from forum #272658, EM-2 (Girls' Frontline) has 3 costume tags and 25 posts total, which is similarly egregious). So the main issue is this then: do we want to normalize the spread of costume tagging to TV shows?

As we speak, we're deliberating on this in regards to comic book characters outside of games in topic #32808 as well, and recent discussions have indicated that people do want to constrain the spread of costume tags, so the answer seems to clearly be no, but what about the variant chartags that got approved for Adventure Time? If those were fine, why isn't this? At minimum, that justifies 80s Amethyst's existence. But the rest are more questionable.

I think for the case of Steven Universe characters (gems specifically), it makes more sense to have different tags for their forms because they're not just seen as costume changes, but the characters entirely reforming, so there's a bigger distinction within the fandom between them. (Amethyst admittedly does have the most subtle changes out of all of the gems, but she was just the first one I made a BUR for and I intended to follow up with ones for the others after I made wikis for them.) I think costume tags work best when they're for something that is both distinct from the default form (which the gems don't really have) and that users would actively search for specifically, and as far as I recall, SU fans tend to have favorite forms of all the characters that they would want to see specifically.

pipirupirupirupipirupi said:

(Amethyst admittedly does have the most subtle changes out of all of the gems, but she was just the first one I made a BUR for and I intended to follow up with ones for the others after I made wikis for them.)

Before you do that, I think it would be best if, in a reply, you could lay out the differences in appearances between the gems' various forms in the same format as the Appearance section in their wikis. That way, anyone opening the thread can immediately make a judgement call.

Damian0358 said:

Before you do that, I think it would be best if, in a reply, you could lay out the differences in appearances between the gems' various forms in the same format as the Appearance section in their wikis. That way, anyone opening the thread can immediately make a judgement call.

Amethyst

80s Amethyst

Amethyst (First Form)

Amethyst (Second Form)

Amethyst (Third Form)

Amethyst (Fourth Form)

Pearl

Pearl (Original Form)

80s Pearl

Pearl (First Form)

Pearl (Second Form)

Pearl (Third Form)

Garnet

Cotton Candy Garnet

Garnet (First Form)

Garnet (Second Form)

Garnet (Third Form)

I personally think, of these costume tags, the only ones that might serve any actual functionality are 80s Amethyst, Pearl (original Form) (Steven Universe), 80s Pearl, and Cotton Candy Garnet. The rest are so minimally different from each other I really don't see a point in keeping them around. And even then, these parent tags are so small, that itself could be grounds for nuking them too. I'd personally disagree with this logic, however, as these specific alt costumes have one notable difference compared to the Padme Amidala debacle a while back: Pearl, Amethyst, and Garnet all have default outfits, which generally means tagging the exception in this case is normally encouraged, with these costume tags specifically being small as they are compared to the parent that it might be legitimately hard to search for, especially were they to ever balloon for whatever reason. Padme had none of that.

Were we voting on just those above costumes, I'd meh both the BUR to nuke and the BUR to imply, but generally speaking those are tags I'd give the benefit of the doubt for, as someone unfamiliar with SU.

The rest of them are just minor variations on each other, and should be nuked. If you want Amethyst (Third Form) (Steven Universe), you can get that by searching amethyst_(steven_universe) white_tank_top.

Knowledge_Seeker said:

Pearl, Amethyst, and Garnet all have default outfits, which generally means tagging the exception in this case is normally encouraged, with these costume tags specifically being small as they are compared to the parent that it might be legitimately hard to search for, especially were they to ever balloon for whatever reason. Padme had none of that.

I mean, it isn't that simple for two reasons: firstly, to give SU context as someone who watched the show, each form represents a brand new default. A Gem in Steven Universe has a malleable physical form, in that they have a base appearance they stick with and which they can modify (so they can 'change clothes' this way, as well as even shapeshift for short periods of time), but it's more like a hologram projection with mass behind it, as the actual 'gem' is the literal gemstone you can see on them. When a Gem's physical form gets damaged enough, it gets 'poofed', leaving only the gemstone behind as the Gem attempts to regenerate, which is when they can decide to change their base form. So, unless something happens, you never see the previous form again as it had been abandoned for a new form - which means all of these are defaults, each representing various points in the show (making it closer to the proposals of tagging ONE PIECE appearances in topic #31153, where post-timeskip you saw a similar trend with new defaults per arc), with the exception to the very tags you said might serve functionality, because they made their debuts first in flashback sequences.

Secondly, defaults are something we've seen a slow trend towards in terms of tagging. Of course, the cases we have right now, Fate, VTubers, and Splatoon, all have defaults tagged because otherwise they would otherwise be unsearchable due to all the official costumes and alternate costumes, which wouldn't be the case here, but you would have to be really careful with how one defines 'unsearchable' as we move into further costume tagging discussions.

Knowledge_Seeker said:

Pearl, Amethyst, and Garnet all have default outfits

Note that the “default” permanently changes each time the Gem’s body is destroyed and they reform themselves. After reformation, the previous costumes are hardly acknowledged.

If by “default”, you mean “the most common”, then that would be the “second forms” for Garnet and Pearl, and probably also Amethyst. That means if we keep the tags for the exceptions, it would be the first, third, and fourth forms.

Okay, yeah, those are bad choices of words there, if this is how it works in SU. I knew some of the details through osmosis (like poofing), but I didn't know it would change their default form in-universe. That definitely muddles the waters quite a bit there.

While I do still think the differences as presented here are so minor it'd not be worth tagging, I do admit that, given how SU seems to handles its forms, that's definitely worth taking into consideration when debating these tags. What are stray SU fans expecting from Danbooru? The tags' size is definitely something to consider still, but if SU fans would legitimately be weirded out by not having forms accounted it, in a hypothetical where they were big enough for the size not to matter, I'd rather just have the form tags then.

The differences are too minor to make them whole tags. 80s Amethyst could be tagged aged down to find.
Original Garnet is the only one that deserves a tag due to how different and unique she looks like.

BaiserLaVerite said:

The differences are too minor to make them whole tags. 80s Amethyst could be tagged aged down to find.

There are artists that portray her as physically younger, but it’s mostly her personality rather than her appearance, so it would have to be on a case-by-case basis.

Original Garnet is the only one that deserves a tag due to how different and unique she looks like.

In other words, Cotton Candy Garnet, rather than Garnet (First Form) (Steven Universe).

Speaking of original, there’s also the forms they had in the pilot, which look radically different than any of their other forms (Pearl didn’t have her signature schnozz, for example).

Blank_User said:

Speaking of original, there’s also the forms they had in the pilot, which look radically different than any of their other forms (Pearl didn’t have her signature schnozz, for example).

I think that would be solved by just adding Steven Universe Pilot to posts with those designs (which, besides Garnet, I haven't seen on here yet. Unfortunate, because I love those designs haha.)

These characters have way too few posts to justify having four different costume tags.

BUR #46226 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

nuke amethyst_(first_form)_(steven_universe)
nuke amethyst_(second_form)_(steven_universe)
nuke amethyst_(third_form)_(steven_universe)
nuke amethyst_(fourth_form)_(steven_universe)
nuke garnet_(first_form)_(steven_universe)
nuke garnet_(second_form)_(steven_universe)
nuke garnet_(third_form)_(steven_universe)
nuke pearl_(first_form)_(steven_universe)
nuke pearl_(second_form)_(steven_universe)
nuke pearl_(third_form)_(steven_universe)

As above

The bulk update request #46226 (forum #378889) has been approved by @nonamethanks.

The bulk update request #45566 (forum #376360) has been rejected by @nonamethanks.