Imply gunpla -> plamo and Alias plamo -> model_kit

NNescio said:

Alright, I was working on the G-Spring Goddess series, so I ran into many examples that might count for at least one of the three above tags, causing me some problems as I internally debated which one to use. After some careful consideration, I believe we need to 'reorganize' these tags with implications and alias relationships. Anyhow, 'easy' part first:

Plamo are effectively plastic model_kits. So, an implication might seem appropriate. But I don't think we need to distinguish between metal model kits or plastic model kits, so we might as well alias plamo to model_kit.

And yes, while technically "Plamo" just means "plastic model", and can refer to, say, scratch-built models or pre-built figures (as noted on the English wikipedia article, I don't think we use the tag for such on Danbooru. In fact I don't think anyone (well, most people) uses "plamo" for those other senses. Heck, the Japanese version of the same article disagrees, as it strongly implies that some element of construction has to be involved, both in the article and with all the pictures of sprues and nippers.

In fact, if I do a search for "プラモデル" + "完成品" ("Plamodel" + "finished product") on Google, all I get is a bunch of auction pages advertising pre-built gunpla. That is, plastic models from assembly kits that people have finished building and are reselling. I don't even get hits for plastic action figures or plastic toys or scratch-built products or anything.

If I got the usage of "plamo" wrong (I'm not an avid modeller), then I would like somebody to correct me. Otherwise, to reiterate my earlier point, I think plamo are plastic model_kits, so we should at least do an implication. I also think that distinguishing between plastic and metal (or wood or whatever material) is unimportant, so we might as well proceed further and alias plamo to model kit. This gives us a general term that can be used for ship models to tank models to gunpla and Warhammer miniatures (those that require assembly). And model_kits are probably more intuitive for general users who aren't familiar with the Japanese term anyway.

Now, moving on to Gunpla...
Gunpla are "Gundam plastic models", basically. Like "plamo", I don't think people ever call "premade by the manufacturer figures" Gunpla. Something like the ROBOT Damashii line gets called "action figures" (アクションフィギュア) or "figures" (フィギュア) both in advertising and by fans. I don't think they get called Gunpla (or "plamo"). In fact I have a strong suspicion that a lot of people "within the subculture" would object most strongly if one does.

(You know, like calling an action figure a doll.)

Again, I am not an avid modeller, so if I got any of the above wrong, I would like someone to correct me. Otherwise, well, it seems like Gunpla are a type of plamo, and we can proceed with the implication (to model_kit, if we're going to alias plamo to that too).

But this approach might have some complications. Mainly, two. That I can think of. Though I'll present counterarguments for them.

1. The Gundam Build series have a lot of Gunpla 'characters' unique to them that are not featured in the various original Gundam series. Someone might 'knee-jerk' tag them Gunpla even if they are being depicted as actual mecha or mecha_musume instead of plastic models.

Counterargument: First I went through gunpla gundam_build_* mecha_musume. Only post #1977057 might be an issue, but one can see the plastic joints and also the plastic 'screws' on the apron, so pass. Next I went over gunpla gundam_build_* mecha. There are some examples that appear problematic at first glance, but most of these have apparent plastic joints or seam lines or... flat 'low-detailed' edges and plasticity surface texture near arms and legs that indicate they are Gunpla. So, after going through multiple pages... I think the only notable issue is May's Wodom Pod, which is usually depicted with a sleek futuristic look (with many detailed metal/mechanical looking joints and lines) that doesn't look 'plasticy'. post #4209065 being one such example (though the blockish parts on the arms might be able to hint that it is Gunpla).

Oh and also post #2295584. The Qubeley Papillon isn't really detailed enough to make out 'plastic' Gunpla details, so it might be problematic. Interestingly, none of the child posts are tagged with Gunpla. So, overall, don't think there's much of an issue of the implication causing things that don't look like "models" becoming implicit-tagged as "models", other than the Wodom Pod, but we can work out some kind of 'tag usage notes' for that.

2. The Gundam franchise also releases some pre-built figures that are not Gunpla (The Robot Damashii and Mobile Suit in Action lines being two notable examples). Somebody not being able to tell the difference might 'mistag' one such post as Gunpla (instead of the appropriate, say, action figure). This can be fixed later, but the person doing the fixing might miss any plamo or model kit tags that have been introduced via implication.

Counterargument: We have similar issues with other tags when an implication is introduced. In this case, the value and convenience of automatically tagging all gunpla posts with plamo (or model kit, if the alias goes through) outweighs the issue above. Currently we have a lot of gunpla posts that do not have the appropriate plamo tag even if they are overly plamo (sprues and boxes depicted in-frame as well), and needing to manually add the appropriate tags to all of those (and those in the future) is more trouble than the potential trouble caused by the introduced implication.

--

So, overall, I think there's a pretty solid case for:
Aliasing plamo -> model_kit
Implying Gunpla -> model_kit

So why am I opening a thread just for discussing this instead of proceeding straight to a BUR? Well, I am not an avid modeller (I only got familiar with the lingo and subculture by working on the G-Spring Goddess series), and I am far from infallible, so I may have gotten some of the above terms and their usage wrong. As such I'd like to discuss this first with the community before proceeding with the BURs. In particular, I would like to listen to opinions from people who are, well, avid modelers who know the lingo and terms used "in and out", so to speak. They would also be the people who would be most concerned with my proposed changes (as well as being the people most likely to use these tags, both tagging and searching), so I would like to clear these with them first. I wouldn't want to step on anybody's toes and mess up anybody's search and tagging practices.