Posted under Tags
BUR #9238 has been rejected.
remove implication sitonai_(festival_outfit)_(fate) -> sitonai_(fate)
create implication sitonai_(fate) -> illyasviel_von_einzbern
create implication sitonai_(festival_outfit)_(fate) -> illyasviel_von_einzbern
Functionally they are trivial costumes for Illya. We just did it for bazett
This is pretty much the kind of "substituting an issue with another" I feared would result from the way it was decided to try and solve Fate tagging with keeping flat implications. This pushes us into a situation where Sitonai costumes would be detached from Sitonai and not appear in a Sitonai search, which doesn't really make much sense to me.
It's either everything gets linked to Illyasviel Von Einzbern and Sitonai's costumes don't appear in a search for her own tag, which isn't optimal, or Sitonai stays by herself without being linked to Illya but her costumes appear in a Sitonai search, which also isn't optimal. Personally I'd prefer keeping Sitonai by herself, in that case, detached from Illya.
Updated
If this is the case, does this mean Matou Sakura needs to be removed from all of Parvati's images as well? I went through Parvati's posts and they all have the Matou Sakura tag, which could cause a conflict with this rule. Kama doesn't have Matou Sakura or Dark Sakura added to her, so I would think it'd be the same with Parvati.
Benit149 said:
If this is the case, does this mean Matou Sakura needs to be removed from all of Parvati's images as well? I went through Parvati's posts and they all have the Matou Sakura tag, which could cause a conflict with this rule. Kama doesn't have Matou Sakura or Dark Sakura added to her, so I would think it'd be the same with Parvati.
I posted removing it in forum #183038, but it seems like a couple were on the fence about it.
MegaFlare said:
I posted removing it in forum #183038, but it seems like a couple were on the fence about it.
That was a year ago. Maybe opinions will have changed since then.
Admiral_Pectoral said:
I would like to point out that Muramasa also implies Shirou. I'm glad this was suggested so that we can finally reach a solution for all these pseudo servants that we tag inconstantly.
Ganesha also doesn't imply Jinako.
I think the problem with Muramasa = Shirou originated from the long debate over the Limited/Zero Over Craft Essence's costume design (post #2116330) and how it transcended into a full-on playable character later on in the game's life. No other Pseudo-Servant originated like this, so it made more sense to say Servant ≠ Human Character. Muramasa's unorthodox origin and implementation is causing a tremendous amount of headaches over separating the Servants from their human counterparts. This is all on top of Muramasa eventually having his own costume tags for his Second and Third Ascension levels. Does this mean those tags have to be implicated to Emiya Shirou or to Senji Muramasa (Fate)? Same problem applies with Parvati = Sakura.
Updated
There really isn't a major reason to have pseudo's not be separate. They go by a different name, act differently, and mostly get different art than the originals they come from. All this mishmashing of implications to the original FSN characters they come from mostly just serves to pointlessly inflate those characters numbers, when it really isn't *them* that are being drawn.
BUR #9245 has been rejected.
remove implication senji_muramasa_(fate) -> emiya_shirou
remove implication parvati_(fate) -> matou_sakura
I think it's high time we remove these implications for good. It'll involve some cleaning up, but better to do it now since the number of posts is just going to increase anyway.
Updated
RingyThingy said:
There really isn't a major reason to have pseudo's not be separate. They go by a different name, act differently, and mostly get different art than the originals they come from. All this mishmashing of implications to the original FSN characters they come from mostly just serves to pointlessly inflate those characters numbers, when it really isn't *them* that are being drawn.
Unfortunately, this is not consistent. Jaguarman_(fate) is certainly a very different character than Fujimura Taiga and Ishtar has evolved into her own character, but someone like Ganesha_(fate) is more or less directly stated to be Jinako Carigiri in a costume. She even changes her display name to Jinako when ascended. Nowadays, a lot of them don't even wear a costume in their release info or most of their in-game ascensions. post #5117845 is the final ascension image for Manannan mac Lir (fate). Were it not official art, it would be impossible to tell that it was the pseudo.
Thing is? At the end of the day, pseudoservants are FGO's excuse for adding existing franchise characters to the game's gacha. They are essentially costume tags in my opinion. It does not matter that they act differently - if they act differently at all, Jinako! - as we tag what we see, not what we know.
Veradux said:
we tag what we see, not what we know.
The problem here is that we have ignored this principle in special circumstances for quite some time. The entire basis of the Ishtar thing is that Ishtar acts so differently to Rin(not to mention having significantly different standards of dressing) that it was considered annoying to have Ishtar posts flooding the Rin tag. Logically, by the basis of only going by seen, we would be reverting the Ishtar consideration.
This incident happens every time a new pseudo comes out. Group A says it should be merged with the original character because it is, group B says it should be separate because the character is treated so differently that it doesn't really fit the spirit of the original tag. Honestly, I'm of the opinion that we should just treat them all like Ishtar, where they are considered their own character and don't get merged with the copyright and baggage the original tag has.
Astolfo said:
I don't really see why we can't just treat it case by case and keep the implication for someone like, say, Caren or Bazett who are essentially the same character and keep it unimplicated for characters like Ishtar or Sitonai.
If we do it case-by-case, we'd want something to reference how each Pseudo-Servant is treated in-universe. Something like:
Shirou ≠ Muramasa
FSN Rin ≠ Ishtar
Extra Rin ≠ Ereshkigal
Sakura ≠ Parvati
Illya ≠ Sitonai
Kirei ≠ Rasputin
Caren = Amor Caren
Bazett = Manannan mac Lir
Jinako = Ganesha
(≠ means they have little to no connection to the base character. = means they have a very strong connection, or are the base character)
And then adjust this accordingly.
Updated
I agree with Benit's idea.
This is only tangentially related, but if one were to make a tohsaka_rin_(fate/extra) tag, given that Ereshkigal is based on her, and assuming the character implications for each pseudo-servant got through, would it mean that Ereshkigal would imply Extra Rin's tag?
Username_Hidden said:
I agree with Benit's idea.
This is only tangentially related, but if one were to make a tohsaka_rin_(fate/extra) tag, given that Ereshkigal is based on her, and assuming the character implications for each pseudo-servant got through, would it mean that Ereshkigal would imply Extra Rin's tag?
I did indeed make the Tohsaka Rin (Fate/Extra) tag, but since FSN Rin ≠ Ishtar and thus there's no implication, it'd be the same with Extra Rin ≠ Ereshkigal. Hell, I had no clue about Extra Rin and what her background was before doing all of this tag gardening.
Astolfo said:
I don't really see why we can't just treat it case by case and keep the implication for someone like, say, Caren or Bazett who are essentially the same character and keep it unimplicated for characters like Ishtar or Sitonai.
Me being part of the problem, someone who agreed and made BURs for Fate character implications in the last few months, this is my opinion.
