The bulk update request #36308 (forum #333847) has been approved by @evazion.
Posted under Tags
The bulk update request #36308 (forum #333847) has been approved by @evazion.
evazion said:
Bao (vtuber) is short for Bao (indie virtual youtuber), the copyright tag.
I don't think anyone has ever argued that that is what it means, especially given the fact that the qualifier predates the copytag, and especially since it has the same disambiguating use for copytags, ala VEE (VTuber). Does that make that tag VEE (Indie Virtual YouTuber) all of a sudden?
Yes, that's a weird qualifier because VEE (VTuber) is a not a virtual Youtuber, it's a VTuber agency. It's like qualifying a videogame studio with *_(game) or an anime studio with *_(anime).
evazion said:
Yes, that's a weird qualifier because VEE (VTuber) is a not a virtual Youtuber, it's a VTuber agency. It's like qualifying a videogame studio with *_(game) or an anime studio with *_(anime).
How else would you qualify it and the 27 other copytags like it then?
*_(company) or *_(agency) or something, the same way it's Trigger (company) and Sunrise (company), not (Trigger) (anime) and Sunrise (anime).
evazion said:
Bao (vtuber) is short for Bao (indie virtual youtuber), the copyright tag. If we wouldn't write Bao (indie virtual youtuber) (1st costume), then we shouldn't write Bao (vtuber) (1st costume).
_(vtuber) is just short for "virtual youtuber". Even in the context of them being qualifiers for indie virtual youtubers, "virtual youtuber" is all people think of when they see them. If they really were short for "indie virtual youtuber", then they'd be _(indie_vtuber) instead.
Additionally, indie_virtual_youtuber is a copyright tag in color only, and is much more comparable to the general virtual_youtuber tag than any actual copyright tag. The only reason it's purple and not blue is to avoid the nightmare scenario of having 2000 individual copyright tags that just mirror the results for the vtubers themselves, which by extension is the reason we have the generic catch-all _(vtuber) qualifier rather than 2000 different _(indie_vtuber_studio) qualifiers.
However, none of this is even relevant because _(vtuber) is not a copyright qualifier.
—————
If you don't know the character you might think Monarch (Amalee) (Mafia) means "Amalee" is the outfit and "Mafia" is the copyright, not the other way around. Consistently using character_(costume)_(qualifier) everywhere avoids this confusion.
Unilaterally applying this to everything means that instead of fujimaru_ritsuka_(female)_(polar_chaldea_uniform), you now get fujimaru_ritsuka_(polar_chaldea_uniform)_(female). This might work for Fate (which to my knowledge releases skins for both genders under the same name), but the same is not true for other copyrights. For instance, robin_(female)_(seaside_tactician)_(fire_emblem) becomes robin_(seaside_tactician)_(female)_(fire_emblem), which then implies the existence of robin_(seaside_tactician)_(male)_(fire_emblem). However, male Robin's swimsuit skin is not called Seaside Tactician - in fact, he doesn't even have one.
Disambiguation qualifiers like _(vtuber), _(male), _(female), _(young), _(dog) etc. should be considered a part of the base tag rather than a qualifier, always immediately following the character's name. If "saber" is the character segment of the saber_(fate) tag, then "robin_(female)" is the character segment of the robin_(female)_(fire_emblem) tag.
To expand on that and relate it back to indie vtubers, robin_(female)_(fire_emblem) is saying "this is the female Robin from Fire Emblem". Meanwhile, bao_(vtuber) is simply saying "this is Bao the vtuber" - it isn't saying she's "from" anything. Again, the only reason it isn't bao_(united_talent) and therefore saying "this is Bao from United Talent" is because we don't make copyright tags for indie vtubers.
evazion said:
*_(company) or *_(agency) or something, the same way it's Trigger (company) and Sunrise (company), not (Trigger) (anime) and Sunrise (anime).
This makes sense. I'd go with _(agency).
AngryZapdos said:
Again, the only reason it isn't bao_(united_talent) and therefore saying "this is Bao from United Talent" is because we don't make copyright tags for indie vtubers.
Imagine if we actually tagged IRL actual agencies, given how you can just as easily leave those (plus, building off of your example, it would imply that we have a united_talent copytag - so would we start tagging folks like Lil Nas X because he's in the agency??)
Unilaterally applying this to everything means that instead of fujimaru_ritsuka_(female)_(polar_chaldea_uniform), you now get fujimaru_ritsuka_(polar_chaldea_uniform)_(female). This might work for Fate (which to my knowledge releases skins for both genders under the same name), but the same is not true for other copyrights. For instance, robin_(female)_(seaside_tactician)_(fire_emblem) becomes robin_(seaside_tactician)_(female)_(fire_emblem), which then implies the existence of robin_(seaside_tactician)_(male)_(fire_emblem). However, male Robin's swimsuit skin is not called Seaside Tactician - in fact, he doesn't even have one.
This only makes sense if you view _(female) and _(vtuber) as on the same level. They're not. _(vtuber) goes last because it's clarifying which character it is, the same as a copyright tag. _(female) goes first because it's saying which variant of the character it is, the same as a costume tag.
robin_(female)_(seaside_tactician)_(fire_emblem) is in character-variant-subvariant-qualifier order. First you have which character it is - Robin. Then you have which version of Robin it is - Female Robin. Then you have which outfit of Female Robin it is - the Seaside Tactician outfit of Female Robin. Finally you have which Robin it all is - the Robin from Fire Emblem.
Likewise bao_(1st_costume)_(vtuber) is in character-variant-qualifier order. First you have which character it is - Bao. Then you have which variant it is - the first costume of Bao. Then you have which Bao it is - Bao the VTuber, not Bao (KoF) the King of Fighters character or Bao (League of Legends) the LoL character.
It shouldn't be Bao (vtuber) (1st costume) for the same reason it's not Azki (hololive) (1st_costume). Even if I grant that _(vtuber) isn't a copyright qualifier, _(vtuber) and _(hololive) both serve the same purpose of disambiguating which character it is - Bao the VTuber versus AZKi the Hololive VTuber. I see no reason to treat them differently.
Original characters follow the same logic. It's Kemomimi-chan (Fish) (Naga U) not Kemomimi-chan (Naga U) (Fish) because "fish" describes which version of the character it is, so it goes first, while Naga U describes where the character is from, so it goes last. It's character-variant-qualifier order, to be read as "Kemomimi-chan the fish, by Naga U". By your logic it would be Kemomimi-chan (Naga U) (Fish) and it would be read as "Kemomimi-chan by Naga U, the fish" because first you need to say which Kemomimi-chan it is before saying which version of Kemomimi-chan it is.
evazion said:
This only makes sense if you view _(female) and _(vtuber) as on the same level. They're not.
I don't think we'll ever get past this fundamental disagreement, but from what you're saying you don't seem to think any other established qualifiers need to be overhauled, which was my main concern this whole time. If vtubers are the extent of this inconsistency, then I'll quit my bellyaching.
I still don't think you can uniformly apply the standard of (vtuber) being an indie VTuber copytag qualifier even if we eliminated the copytags that currently use it, but since the main advocate for the qualifier order has conceded, I think it would be best to make any order-correcting BURs in their own thread, just so anyone wondering why this change occurred doesn't have to go through a 60+ thread for context - plus, any changes to the copytags and chartags which, in your eyes, should have a different qualifier, can also be handled there too. That way this thread can maintain its current purpose of being for just the costumes.