Posted under General
If they're wearing nothing/underwear maybe, it's kind of borderline and there's decent arguments for either way, personally I would err on the side of no but I'm not sure how I would actually tag it.
For photos, no they should not be used on photos at all with the notable exception of the Asuka-Yoko set (post #377340) and the other figures.
Log said:
If they're wearing nothing/underwear maybe, it's kind of borderline and there's decent arguments for either way, personally I would err on the side of no but I'm not sure how I would actually tag it.
How else should it be noted, though? Should the tag of the character associated with the costume be added at least? (even if not the _(cosplay) version).
葉月 said:
What? If X is being cosplayed, then it gets tagged with X_(cosplay).
That's what it seems to me, but Log seems to be against it. Looking through some of the tag histories on the photo cosplays, it actually seems like several have had the x_(cosplay) tags added to them, and Log removes them like clockwork. The recent post #591222 has been removed and then added back even. Not that I really care too much either way, but need to decide on one way or the other so there won't be so much needless changing of tags.
There's already a standard formed nearing on 3 years ago outlined in forum #1261. If you're going to argue that this needs to be changed yet again I quit.
Log said:
There's already a standard formed nearing on 3 years ago outlined in forum #1261. If you're going to argue that this needs to be changed yet again I quit.
I don't understand why this says not to add _(cosplay). Thus I don't understand your blind following of the letter if I can't see the spirit, especially as not marking _(cosplay) means people who don't like photo cosplay (who are apparently numerous here) have a harder time filtering it out. So honestly, you're throwing a fit about something only you understand; that's not something I can bring myself to care about.
And as you say yourself, it's a topic from nearly 3 years ago, with no recorded discussion and whopping 3 posts. Calling this "changed yet again" and threatening quitting is so childish I'm not going to care if you do.
How is it harder? Please explain the mechanics behind how this is harder. It is currently far far easier.
If you search for currently x_(cosplay) you will receive NO photo results. This certainly sounds easier to me. If you want photos of a character you search for photo character. There is also no need to do exclusionary searches within photo cosplays. Photo x -x_(cosplay) would turn up nothing.
I'm not throwing a fit, this is the 3rd time *at least* that someone has insisted on changing how cosplays are tagged and I'm goddamn tired of demands to change established conventions on 6000 posts that must be edited manually every time. It will be a thousand times easier on me if you do force a change and I never have to deal with this tag again.
Updated
It's easier because someone searching for X, but not interested in cosplay can exclude X_(cosplay) and not receive photo results. OTOH, I fail to see how someone looking specifically for cosplay of X is deemed not to be interested in instances of photo cosplay by default.
Log said:
If you want photos of a character you search for photo character.
Really? Please show me a photo of Izumi Konata and not a person cosplaying as her. I'd be really excited to see that.
I'm not throwing a fit, this is the 3rd time *at least* that someone has insisted on changing how cosplays are tagged and I'm goddamn tired of demands to change established conventions on 6000 posts that must be edited manually every time. It will be a thousand times easier on me if you do force a change and I never have to deal with this tag again.
3 years. Which gives whole 1 request/year or so. Regarding a convention that's been just proclaimed with no explanation or discussion whatsoever, and which is only explained in an obscure forum thread with the grand total of three posts. Yes, that is *exactly* something that warrants threatening quitting.
Maybe, y'know, making sure it's *discussed* this time before sticking to anything would make it easier to avoid having it contested?
葉月 said:
It's easier because someone searching for X, but not interested in cosplay can exclude X_(cosplay) and not receive photo results. OTOH, I fail to see how someone looking specifically for cosplay of X is deemed not to be interested in instances of photo cosplay by default.
What. If you are not interested in cosplay you search -cosplay. If you don't want photos search -photo. Don't try to make this a thousand times harder than it has to be. This statement makes me question if you even understand how the cosplay tags work.
Really? Please show me a photo of Izumi Konata and not a person cosplaying as her. I'd be really excited to see that.
Don't be an ass. You understood exactly what I was saying and you know it.
3 years. Which gives whole 1 request/year or so. Regarding a convention that's been just proclaimed with no explanation or discussion whatsoever, and which is only explained in an obscure forum thread with the grand total of three posts.
Just because it wasn't discussed on the forums doesn't mean it wasn't discussed. There were at 2 days between thread where you shat a brick over archer_(cosplay) (I don't care enough to find it) existing and forum #1261 so it was rather clearly discussed just not in a location you are happy with.
Maybe, y'know, making sure it's *discussed* this time before sticking to anything would make it easier to avoid having it contested?
By the complete lack of posts in this thread I'm inclined to believe that you are the only one who actually wants a change.
Updated
Log said:
What. If you are not interested in cosplay you search -cosplay. If you don't want photos search -photo. Don't try to make this a thousand times harder than it has to be. This statement makes me question if you even understand how the cosplay tags work.
Except that this also excludes X cosplaying as someone else, and not just being cosplayed as, and generally loses fidelity. We have the whole _(cosplay) convention for a reason, and you carefully avoid explaining why exactly you want it sidestepped for photo cosplay. Therefore I'm forced to conclude you don't have any reason besides "the thread told me so, and I never bothered to understand why".
Don't be an ass. You understood exactly what I was saying and you know it.
Quite the opposite. Photo cosplay is a kind of cosplay. You need to explain why you want it tagged differently.
Just because it wasn't discussed on the forums doesn't mean it wasn't discussed. There were at 2 days between thread where you shat a brick over archer_(cosplay) (I don't care enough to find it) existing and forum #1261 so it was rather clearly discussed just not in a location you are happy with.
I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say here. There seem to be words missing at the very least.
By the complete lack of posts in this thread I'm inclined to believe that you are the only one who actually wants a change.
You'd notice I wasn't the one to start the thread or first ask for the explanation of this policy.
葉月 said:
Except that this also excludes X cosplaying as someone else, and not just being cosplayed as, and generally loses fidelity. We have the whole _(cosplay) convention for a reason, and you carefully avoid explaining why exactly you want it sidestepped for photo cosplay. Therefore I'm forced to conclude you don't have any reason besides "the thread told me so, and I never bothered to understand why".
Because it makes sense. Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to the people who regularly use the tag. post #591222 is the only photo that has had x_(cosplay) added in 3+ months aside from post #554220 where you yourself adhered to the standard when it was uploaded. Clearly if more people were having issues someone would have a) raised the issue before now or b) tagged all the photos with x_(cosplay) where it would have been brought up in a forum post anyways.
I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say here. There seem to be words missing at the very least.
I'm sorry your reading comprehension is terrible?
You'd notice I wasn't the one to start the thread or first ask for the explanation of this policy.
He didn't ask for explanation he just asked what the policy was? Maybe you should re-read the first post. In fact, you were the first person to ask for explanation in 3 years.
