Amagi_(battlecruiser)

I think we need a new tag to separate fan-made instances of the Amagi-class battlecruiser Amagi from the official Unryuu-class aircraft carrier Amagi.

post #1672465 post #1681052 post #1793773

Yeah, I warned that this issue would come up about a month & a half ago: post #1885946

Wouldn't amagi_(kantai_collection) -original and amagi_(kantai_collection) original suffice in separating the two?

only if people remember to tag original for fan-made stuff.

If they're going to fail to remember to tag her with the original tag, they'll just as likely fail to remember to use a tag for only original depictions of her, so that argument cuts both ways.

Also now that she has an official design, I doubt we're going to see much in terms of original designs for her.

No, it's because those two are different ships of the same name. If it was the same vessel the "original" tag could suffice, but in this case they need to be completely separated because they're different ships&characters.

And I think the battlecruiser should be the one getting the _(battlecruiser) suffix because priority should be given to the official one.

Unofficial designs that are not related to the official design in any way should never have a tag with a "_(kantai_collection)" qualifier in my opinion. Seems there's been a habit of doing this, but I don't agree with it. It just invites confusion (especially when "original" isn't even tagged like in post #1681052, but it's still confusing since there are official characters mixed in). Rather, unofficial original designs related to KanColle should be identified with a generic ship tag, so I agree with using the _(battlecruiser) suffix.

I have to agree with EB on that. This is nothing like how fanmade designs occasional show up for prominent IJN ships that simply haven't been implemented in-game yet (such as post #1682927 for Shinano, and back before Musashi got an official design, post #1494218). Amagi the battlecruiser and Amagi the aircraft carrier are entirely separate ships.

It's like the various Kancolle-style art for modern JMSDF ships do not use the tag for their Kancolle namesakes unless both are in the image.

Alright, though two things. (1) Is this tag a character tag or a general tag? (2) Can we please have some sort of consistency for these tags with their qualifiers? Sure _(battlecruiser) is what it is, but there are tons of other various ships (I'm just going to stick with ships) and tons of other various qualifiers, including their id numbers (common with US ships). Can we have at least some portion of the qualifier be consistent amongst these tags so that they would all appear under a like *_(<consistent something>_* search? The entire qualifier doesn't have to be the same, but at least a portion of being consistent.

Side note, is there some reason we don't use IJN as a prefix for these?

NWF_Renim said:

Alright, though two things. (1) Is this tag a character tag or a general tag?

I would say character tag.

(2) Can we please have some sort of consistency for these tags with their qualifiers? Sure _(battlecruiser) is what it is, but there are tons of other various ships (I'm just going to stick with ships) and tons of other various qualifiers, including their id numbers (common with US ships). Can we have at least some portion of the qualifier be consistent amongst these tags so that they would all appear under a like *_(<consistent something>_* search? The entire qualifier doesn't have to be the same, but at least a portion of being consistent.

Side note, is there some reason we don't use IJN as a prefix for these?

I'm not knowledgeable enough to have an opinion on what to do here, but an IJN prefix certainly seems like it would be helpful.

We might run into problems with it as a character tag though if someone uploads a work with a non-anthropomorphized, vanilla ship version of battlecruiser Amagi. I think this is why the other shipname_(shipclass) tags are general tags.

I agree with what's being said here. Even if the art may be inspired by Kantai Collection, the character shouldn't have the suffix if it's unofficial. It should be considered generic personification, and if it happens to directly reference the game (normal and damaged versions, using the ship drop background, etc) the post can have the kantai_collection tag but still no prefix.

As for this specific case, I'm dreading that the Amagi battlecruiser might eventually be added officially, so unless we find something good the solution is going to be only temporary. (By the way Amagi isn't the only name that's shared by two Japanese ships.) One possible solution is amagi_battlecruiser_(kantai_collection) and amagi_carrier_(kantai_collection), though I don't think that sounds that good either.

Current tag typing for ships (definitely not all the tags, but hopefully the lion's share of them)

NNescio said:

We might run into problems with it as a character tag though if someone uploads a work with a non-anthropomorphized, vanilla ship version of battlecruiser Amagi. I think this is why the other shipname_(shipclass) tags are general tags.

Is that really a strike against it? Other non-living objects like Gundam mobile suits have been given character tags.

EB said:

Is that really a strike against it? Other non-living objects like Gundam mobile suits have been given character tags.

True. And as Lick King noted, we already had several ships as character tags. Maybe change all the other named ships into character tags, for consistency?

I'm against character-tagging inanimate objects. Gundam is a special case and shouldn't be the basis for deciding what inanimate objects get character-tagged.

We somewhat-recently went through and standardized aircraft as non-character tags, I would assume the same would go for ships.

It's more beneficial to have them as character tags when they're personified because they're grouped together as characters in the tag listing as they should be, and I don't see the downside of inanimate objects having green tags being significant enough to outweigh those benefits. Creating separate tags for personified and non-personified ships is a potential solution, but not worth the trouble IMO.

Thing is, the Amagi ship itself isn't a person, it's a several-ton hunk of floating steel. We start character-tagging actual ships, soon we'll have people character-tagging M1 Garands and Toyota Corollas.

It also doesn't make up for all the noise with the Kantai girls next to their respective ships, such as Kaga next to the Kaga.

Though unlike a M1 Garand or a Toyota Corolla, a warship is given an individual name and are for the most part something that exists in limited numbers. If the ship can be identified beyond its class, then it is unique enough to be identified as an individual, which is a lot more than can be said about most pieces of equipment and vehicles.

Perhaps the creation of a new category for unique mechs and machines, similar to characters would be preferable.