Posted under Tags
With all five of the ReGLOSS girls having debuted, I think Hololive DEV_IS deserves its own copyright tag.
A-chan has stated that DEV_IS is an entirely new branch of Hololive like Hololive English and Hololive Indonesia, with less emphasis on lore and more emphasis on music production, in a similar vein to Inonaka Music.
Just putting this here because I don’t want to add a new copyright tag to posts featuring the ReGLOSS girls without explanation.
Updated
k0rekiyo said:
With all five of the ReGLOSS girls having debuted, I think Hololive DEV_IS deserves its own copyright tag.
A-chan has stated that DEV_IS is an entirely new branch of Hololive like Hololive English and Hololive Indonesia, with less emphasis on lore and more emphasis on music production, in a similar vein to Inonaka Music.
Just putting this here because I don’t want to add a new copyright tag to posts featuring the ReGLOSS girls without explanation.
Personally, we don't really need a DEV_IS copyright tag if we already have the ReGLOSS tag which works the same way as the Holomyth, CouncilRYS, Gamers and Fantasy tags
TheGamingRodent said:
Personally, we don't really need a DEV_IS copyright tag if we already have the ReGLOSS tag which works the same way as the Holomyth, CouncilRYS, Gamers and Fantasy tags
The general group tags are for posts featuring the entire group, not any single or combination of members. ReGLOSS (hololive) is not a replacement for a tag for the actual branch. Even if what you said was right, it would cease to be so the instant they introduced a second group under the branch.
blindVigil said:
The general group tags are for posts featuring the entire group, not any single or combination of members. ReGLOSS (hololive) is not a replacement for a tag for the actual branch. Even if what you said was right, it would cease to be so the instant they introduced a second group under the branch.
I guess you're right, so should we make a copyright tag for DEV_IS now? Or wait until they debut more members for it later?
k0rekiyo said:
A-chan has stated that DEV_IS is an entirely new branch of Hololive like Hololive English and Hololive Indonesia, with less emphasis on lore and more emphasis on music production, in a similar vein to Inonaka Music.
It is worth pointing out that we did not have an INoNaKa Music tag for AZKi and Suisei back when it still existed. Both were simply tagged under Hololive, with their own separate channel tags, which got nuked via BURs (topic #16822, topic #16958). So unless DEV_IS proves itself to be different enough from INNK that it warrants a tag, in a similar way to the non-JP branches, I don't think a tag for DEV_IS will be necessary.
zaregoto said:
I think it's a necessary tag because it's possible they could debut another group further down the line.
Said group could also be given a different group name, like how the current group is named ReGLOSS, so we could just make a
new group tag for it instead of making a copyright tag.
TheGamingRodent said:
Said group could also be given a different group name, like how the current group is named ReGLOSS, so we could just make a
new group tag for it instead of making a copyright tag.
Then what happens when you want to only search for DEV_IS girls? You just keep only using the group tags?
TheGamingRodent said:
Said group could also be given a different group name, like how the current group is named ReGLOSS, so we could just make a
new group tag for it instead of making a copyright tag.
I don't follow this logic. We already established a group tag doesn't serve the same purpose as an all encompassing copytag. By your logic, we shouldn't even have Hololive English, because they all have their own group tags. A second group tag doesn't address the issue of not having a way to search for any post featuring the DEV_IS girls.
Damian0358 said:
It is worth pointing out that we did not have an INoNaKa Music tag for AZKi and Suisei back when it still existed. Both were simply tagged under Hololive, with their own separate channel tags, which got nuked via BURs (topic #16822, topic #16958). So unless DEV_IS proves itself to be different enough from INNK that it warrants a tag, in a similar way to the non-JP branches, I don't think a tag for DEV_IS will be necessary.
Suisei was a member of INNK for less than a year, after which AZKi was the sole member until it was dissolved. There was no resson for there to be an INNK tag because it never had more than two members, allowing a simple OR search, and for most of its existence only had one member.
DEV_IS has five members. Unless most of them leave the group by some means relatively soon, they're already more deserving of a copytag for their branch than INNK was when it had all of its members.
I think a hololive_dev_is copytag implying hololive could be worth it, the main reason we never had an inonaka_music tag was because back then we were still channels as copytags and by the time we started cleaning that mess up, Suisei had already transferred to hololive, so people never felt the need to create a copytag just for Azki.
Mexiguy said:
I think a hololive_dev_is copytag implying hololive could be worth it, the main reason we never had an inonaka_music tag was because back then we were still channels as copytags and by the time we started cleaning that mess up, Suisei had already transferred to hololive, so people never felt the need to create a copytag just for Azki.
I agree. I think this should be done sooner than later too.
BUR #19847 has been approved by @evazion.
mass update hiodoshi_ao -> hololive_dev_is
mass update otonose_kanade -> hololive_dev_is
mass update ichijou_ririka -> hololive_dev_is
mass update juufuutei_raden -> hololive_dev_is
mass update todoroki_hajime -> hololive_dev_is
The discussion has stopped but I believe we should have this tag as based on the existing copyright logic so I'll put it to a vote. If this update does through, I will implicate hololive_dev_is to hololive.
The bulk update request #19847 (forum #253797) has been approved by @evazion.
BUR #20050 has been approved by @evazion.
create implication hololive_dev_is -> hololive
For consistency with the other hololive braches
The bulk update request #20050 (forum #254858) has been approved by @evazion.
