[Arknights] Costume implications

Zumzigzoo said:

BUR #39143 is pending approval.

create implication kal'tsit_(nurse)_(arknights) -> kal'tsit_(arknights)
create implication kal'tsit_(partygoer)_(arknights) -> kal'tsit_(arknights)
create implication kal'tsit_(advisor)_(arknights) -> kal'tsit_(arknights)
create implication kal'tsit_(ambience_synesthesia)_(arknights) -> kal'tsit_(arknights)
create implication kal'tsit_(boss)_(arknights) -> kal'tsit_(arknights)

Created and gardened tags for Kal'tsit's other recognizable official outfits, which previously did not have tags. Follows other Ambience Synesthesia tags and other tags for non-playable official outfits/forms on other characters, such as Amiya.

I'd just want to clarify that the Kal'tsit design from post #7864533 is NOT the same design used as her boss form from IS5 (which is also used in a flashback during the Main story). Rather it's from the non-canonical IS5 web game, wherein she's referred to as King of Purrkatz.

Zumzigzoo said:

They're assigned to be as descriptive as possible without an official name.

My proposal:
Nurse -> Maid. She's a maid during the ursus arc, the outfit is a maid.
Partygoer -> Formal. It's formal wear for a meeting between nobles, partygoer makes me feel like it's something more casual.
Advisor -> Sargon. It's the outfit she wears during the Sargon arc.

BUR #39433 is pending approval.

create implication closure_(act_ii)_(arknights) -> closure_(arknights)

Official outfit.

Login_to_view said:

My proposal:
Nurse -> Maid. She's a maid during the ursus arc, the outfit is a maid.
Partygoer -> Formal. It's formal wear for a meeting between nobles, partygoer makes me feel like it's something more casual.
Advisor -> Sargon. It's the outfit she wears during the Sargon arc.

I agree on all of these, except the last one, as Kal'tsit has been shown wearing the "Advisor" outfit in the third ending of Integrated Strategies 5: Sarkaz's Furnaceside Fables, which takes in Kazdel rather than Sargon. Though I can't come up with a better title other than "Advisor".

BUR #39555 is pending approval.

create alias kal'tsit_(nurse)_(arknights) -> kal'tsit_(maid)_(arknights)
create alias kal'tsit_(partygoer)_(arknights) -> kal'tsit_(formal)_(arknights)

Login_to_view said:

My proposal:
Nurse -> Maid. She's a maid during the ursus arc, the outfit is a maid.
Partygoer -> Formal. It's formal wear for a meeting between nobles, partygoer makes me feel like it's something more casual.

Alias tags to new names after BUR #39143. The advisor -> sargon one is contentious, so separated into BUR #39556.

BUR #39556 is pending approval.

create alias kal'tsit_(advisor)_(arknights) -> kal'tsit_(sargon)_(arknights)

Login_to_view said:

Advisor -> Sargon. It's the outfit she wears during the Sargon arc.

vs

FratmCforo said:

I agree on all of these, except the last one, as Kal'tsit has been shown wearing the "Advisor" outfit in the third ending of Integrated Strategies 5: Sarkaz's Furnaceside Fables, which takes in Kazdel rather than Sargon. Though I can't come up with a better title other than "Advisor".

Regarding the new mon3tr.
Do we wait for the release of the new episode for a new tag? Do we go with mon3tr_(medic)_(arknights)?

create implication amiya_(ambience_synesthesia_2025)_(arknights) -> amiya_(arknights)
create implication angelina_(ambience_synesthesia_2025)_(arknights) -> angelina_(arknights)
forgor how requests work

BUR #39645 has been rejected.

mass update favgroup:42431 -> mon3tr_(person)_(arknights)
create implication mon3tr_(person)_(arknights) -> mon3tr_(arknights)

Mon3tr, who was a Kal'tsit summon, became a distinct character in Episode 15

BUR #39646 is pending approval.

create implication amiya_(ambience_synesthesia_2025)_(arknights) -> amiya_(arknights)
create implication angelina_(ambience_synesthesia_2025)_(arknights) -> angelina_(arknights)

Same character

BUR #39647 has been rejected.

create implication amiya_(ambience_synesthesia_2025)_(arknights) -> amiya_(arknights)
create implication angelina_(ambience_synesthesia_2025)_(arknights) -> angelina_(arknights)

In place of forum #345949.

The bulk update request #39647 (forum #345953) has been rejected by @John_Reality.

nukleer said:

BUR #39645 has been rejected.

mass update favgroup:42431 -> mon3tr_(person)_(arknights)
create implication mon3tr_(person)_(arknights) -> mon3tr_(arknights)

Mon3tr, who was a Kal'tsit summon, became a distinct character in Episode 15

We definitely need an implication but person sounds like an awkward qualifier, perhaps personification would be better but that also sounds somewhat awkward...

BUR #39648 has been rejected.

mass update favgroup:42431 -> mon3tr_(medic)_(arknights)
create implication mon3tr_(medic)_(arknights) -> mon3tr_(arknights)

I think Login to view's qualifier sounds more natural.

In my opinion, while first appearance of mon3tr comes from kal'tsit, in long term creating operator to unit implication sounds bad, considering chance of skins appearing in future.
Thus, my proposal will be leaving mon3tr_(arknights) as is, while changing original for mon3tr_(summon)_(arknights) and creating reverse implication mon3tr_(summon)_(arknights) -> mon3tr_(arknights)

333752 said:

In my opinion, while first appearance of mon3tr comes from kal'tsit, in long term creating operator to unit implication sounds bad, considering chance of skins appearing in future.
Thus, my proposal will be leaving mon3tr_(arknights) as is, while changing original for mon3tr_(summon)_(arknights) and creating reverse implication mon3tr_(summon)_(arknights) -> mon3tr_(arknights)

Seconded

333752 said:

In my opinion, while first appearance of mon3tr comes from kal'tsit, in long term creating operator to unit implication sounds bad, considering chance of skins appearing in future.
Thus, my proposal will be leaving mon3tr_(arknights) as is, while changing original for mon3tr_(summon)_(arknights) and creating reverse implication mon3tr_(summon)_(arknights) -> mon3tr_(arknights)

You're right, this is probably the best solution.

The bulk update request #39648 (forum #345956) has been rejected by @John_Reality.

333752 said:

In my opinion, while first appearance of mon3tr comes from kal'tsit, in long term creating operator to unit implication sounds bad, considering chance of skins appearing in future.
Thus, my proposal will be leaving mon3tr_(arknights) as is, while changing original for mon3tr_(summon)_(arknights) and creating reverse implication mon3tr_(summon)_(arknights) -> mon3tr_(arknights)

Agree. Also we don't have to come up with any sort of qualifier for playable Mon3tr in this case

The bulk update request #39645 (forum #345951) has been rejected by @nukleer.