Posted under Tags
Do we really need to add personification to Kantai Collection posts? Personification is currently on around 2/3 of KanColle posts and KanColle currently takes up around 50% of personification. This should probably be solved one way or another (adding it to the remaining third or purging) because this is is a rather large tag.
In the case of Kantai Collection, I think personification should only be added when the girls' ship-themed accessories are visible. Adding it beyond that just seems excessive to me. That's probably still a rather sizeable percentage of Kantai Collection images, though. If we have to decide between all or none, I would go with none.
i would support limiting the personification as earlier suggested. fully-clothed non-archer ship girls with turret, cannon, machinery, and mecha_musume will mostly fall under it. same goes for archer ship girls equipped with traditional japanese clothing/weaponry. kantai_collection is fast becoming mini-touhou and it wouldn't be long that some tags might become diluted.
count me in the cleanup. i'll try to include the gardening maybe in the weekend.
Ironbottom said:
Does Shimakaze's anchor or Yukikaze's speaker horns on their hairs qualify?
I'd say so, yes. They're things that normal people wouldn't usually wear, so their presence could visually tip you off that "hey, this character might be a personification", even if you're not familiar with kantai collection.
ghostrigger said:
same goes for archer ship girls equipped with traditional japanese clothing/weaponry.
For the carrier girls, it's more the flight deck themed accessories and airplane-shaped arrows that would qualify them for personification. Wouldn't tag if it's just traditional Japanese clothing.
Do they appear in the game in a shape any other than that of a human (with or without accessories)? No? Then why tag them with personification at all, especially given how they are all conveniently suffixed with _(kantai_collection) so there are no misunderstandings?
Why would be something like this be clarified by whether they have some turrets/carriers or not? They don't lose their human shape whatsoever and mixing these two tags with each other is erroneous in majority of cases, only botching the general one.
The only example of a valid personification I can think of, is if rensouhou-chan were drawn as a girl, not a turret.
I don't think the "equipment visible Y/N will help that much with posts flooding the personification tag, if you count Yukikaze's speaker, then Nagato's/Mutsu's/Yamato's radar headwear thing should count too, also Maya's/Choukai's mast things, all those torpedoes, cannons, funnels etc. etc.
And then, there was this thread: topic #9408
It sounds like shimakaze was moved to shimakaze_(kantai_collection) to differentiate between the actual ship and the KanColle personification version.
On a different note, would the same apply to Aoki Hagane no Arpeggio? The characters based on ships appear in both forms (post #1472428, post #1560571 for example). Most of those posts have the personification tag, but not all.
iona might not need the tag, because "Iona" specifically is the name given to the human version of I-401, not the submarine so it's kinda redundant.
Since this thread is now here, I would also like to question whether or not to consider using mecha_musume (along) with kantai_collection as well.
Should the mecha_musume tag be applicable with equipped accessories or what?
i've been contemplating my previous post and might had underestimated the task in hand. it was mentioned earlier about yukikaze's horns. then i'll add the kongou sisters and the mechanical_halo tatsuta are wearing. in short, even without showing the ship's arsenal, there are still enough remnants to associate the namesake ship. and that should constitute more than half of kancolle already (unlike the destroyer girls particularly the akatsuki sisters which are more like school children). then it might not be a worthy endeavor at all.
how about limiting the personification tag to copyright in-universe non-human or non-humanoid character? that would make post #1512867 easier to locate a canon non-human character.
for original or IRL, aside from the personification tag, it might be necessary to add the ship type (battleship, cruiser, destroyer, submarine, etc) and the ship namesake if identifiable.
applying this to kancolle, most ship girls will only have the personification tag if they share the image with their namesake warship.
regarding mecha_musume, i'm not sure atm. at one side, strike_witches mecha_musume only has 6 pages. or are they different? on the other side, i would consider mecha_musume something like a magical_girl. so as long as it's fully clothed with sufficient display of firepower/armor, i may consider it as mecha_musume?
thoughts? thanks.
Stupid question, but shouldn't mecha musume implicate personification?
Wikipedia" defines it as: "anthropomorphic personifications of military hardware...."
Our wiki says "the anthropomorphization of hardware of all kinds (mecha) as cute girls (musume)." and anthropomorphization sounds like a synonym of personification.
Ironbottom said:
Stupid question, but shouldn't mecha musume implicate personification?
Wikipedia" defines it as: "anthropomorphic personifications of military hardware...."
Our wiki says "the anthropomorphization of hardware of all kinds (mecha) as cute girls (musume)." and anthropomorphization sounds like a synonym of personification.
No, not all mecha musume are personifications of specific planes (etc.).
---
Back on topic, IMO the personification tag is still over-used on KanColle pics. Time for cleanup?
I just came to ask about this because I was curious on if the Personification tag should apply to the enemy shipgirls (Re, Wo, etc)
Disclaimer: I don't play the game and I don't know military stuff very well. So I might be outright wrong here.
I was under the impression that these enemy ships weren't based on historical ships at all. If that's true then they're their own original ships which I figure would disqualify them from being personifications. A personification would need to have a different form than the original, which isn't the case with these.
But of course if they are based on real ships then just ignore my horribly misinformed post.
dragnfly said:
...I was under the impression that these enemy ships weren't based on historical ships at all. If that's true then they're their own original ships which I figure would disqualify them from being personifications...
even fictional objects can qualify for the personification tag (e.g. kyubey personification). that said, a historical basis isn't a prerequisite.
however, going back at the issue at hand, kancolle is a very special case. since every ship girl has her own tag, a personification tag might no longer be necessary for most cases. same goes for the enemy ships with female human body characteristics. but no consensus on this yet.
actually, it's hard to locate i-class_destroyer personification for the personified enemy ship, if it already exists in fandom.
if ever we are going to cleanup the personification tag on kancolle, maybe limit it to original ship girls (post #1548524); when ship girls are shown with their namesake ships (post #1499373); when the ship girls are in a state of doing a ship-like behavior (post #1526698); or for personified kancolle non-human characters (post #1512867).
There's a theory that they're US navy ships since their equipment uses the imperial system but it's just interpretation among many, there's no official information whatsoever regarding the backgroundstory.
I wouldn't tag any of the enemy vessels with personification, unless it's a personification of the non-human-like enemies.
And I just got used to tagging KanColle alongside personification (except with the Abyssal Fleet since I found shinkaisei-kan perfectly sufficient).
I don't mind trig's 1st, 2nd, and 4th suggestion.
ghostrigger said:
even fictional objects can qualify for the personification tag (e.g. kyubey personification). that said, a historical basis isn't a prerequisite.
I covered that in the sentence following where you stopped quoting me. "A personification would need to have a different form than the original, which isn't the case with these." and your kyubey personification example doesn't fit with what I'm saying because Kyubey was already a pre-existing thing. So as far as I see it, and based on -kyu-'s (much appreciated) info I'd say the enemy ships shouldn't be tagged personification because (until given official evidence) they are what they are, unlike the other girls who are representations of something else.
And thanks, Kadoya. I didn't even notice that shinkaisei-kan tag. IMO this should indeed cover it.
ghostrigger said:
-maybe limit it to original ship girls (post #1548524); when ship girls are shown with their namesake ships (post #1499373);- -; or for personified kancolle non-human characters (post #1512867).
I think these 3 all fit well for it. doing ship-like things will usually be covered by other tags.
Wypatroszony said:
Do they appear in the game in a shape any other than that of a human (with or without accessories)? No? Then why tag them with personification at all, especially given how they are all conveniently suffixed with _(kantai_collection) so there are no misunderstandings?
Why would be something like this be clarified by whether they have some turrets/carriers or not? They don't lose their human shape whatsoever and mixing these two tags with each other is erroneous in majority of cases, only botching the general one.The only example of a valid personification I can think of, is if rensouhou-chan were drawn as a girl, not a turret.
This topic isn't exactly new, but I'd like to barge in and second the quoted sentiment. IMO, the personification tag is simply redundant here, as "Kantai Collection personification" is pretty much a tautology.
