The Fate/Grand Retagging Project

There's another reason why reworking Fate tags is definitely needed but also why it's going to be a pain in the ass for non-Fate fans regardless of what we do: along my browsing I came across a bunch of Mordred pictures either exclusively tagged with the catch-all Mordred (Fate) (All), or tagged Mordred (Swimsuit Rider) (Fate) when it wasn't depicting the swimsuit version.

This made me do a "mordred_(fate)_(all) -mordred_(fate) -mordred_(swimsuit_rider)_(fate)" search, which showed literal pages of pictures with only the catch-all and no other chartag.
The same is also true for a search for "medb_(fate)_(all) -medb_(fate/grand_order) -medb_(swimsuit_saber)_(fate)" also showing several pages of Medb pictures only having the catch-all chartag and none other.

I stopped after "bb_(fate)_(all) -bb_(fate/extra_ccc) -bb_(swimsuit_mooncancer)_(fate)" but I suspect the same is true of pretty much every character with a catch-all tag, tons of pictures with just the catch-all as a tag even when the version in the picture is correctly identifiable.

Astolfo said:

There's another reason why reworking Fate tags is definitely needed but also why it's going to be a pain in the ass for non-Fate fans regardless of what we do: along my browsing I came across a bunch of Mordred pictures either exclusively tagged with the catch-all Mordred (Fate) (All), or tagged Mordred (Swimsuit Rider) (Fate) when it wasn't depicting the swimsuit version.

This made me do a "mordred_(fate)_(all) -mordred_(fate) -mordred_(swimsuit_rider)_(fate)" search, which showed literal pages of pictures with only the catch-all and no other chartag.
The same is also true for a search for "medb_(fate)_(all) -medb_(fate/grand_order) -medb_(swimsuit_saber)_(fate)" also showing several pages of Medb pictures only having the catch-all chartag and none other.

I stopped after "bb_(fate)_(all) -bb_(fate/extra_ccc) -bb_(swimsuit_mooncancer)_(fate)" but I suspect the same is true of pretty much every character with a catch-all tag, tons of pictures with just the catch-all as a tag even when the version in the picture is correctly identifiable.

Exactly. We can put all the work we want into reworking tags and wikis, but we ultimately cannot force anyone to use tags correctly or read through wikis. Doubly so for series that have more complex and large casts of characters. I for one would not bother with figuring out if a Kantai Collection character is in their Remodel outfit or not; I just want to post and be on my way. Yet I get frustrated when Fate characters are not tagged correctly, even though I understand how much of a disaster the Fate tags are right now, so I feel like a hypocrite.

The main thing I’m hoping for at the end of all of this is to try and streamline things for non-fans, and at least reduce the amount of follow-up tagging that those in the know would do. It won’t be perfect, but that’s just the way the cookie crumbles.

BTW, should the BUR be approved, the next big step is updating all of the wikis. I will sort through the List of Fate Series characters first so everything links correctly, then go from there. I think any discussion regarding Ascension forms, Craft Essences and all that shit will have to wait until later.

Also tangentially, while going through various searches to fix up the pictures that only had a catch-all tag and nothing else, I came across cu_chulainn_(fate/kaleid_liner_prisma_illya) which... seems to be absolutely identical to lancer_(prisma_illya)? I know nothing about Prisma Illya, is there any functional difference between these two tags?

Astolfo said:

Also tangentially, while going through various searches to fix up the pictures that only had a catch-all tag and nothing else, I came across cu_chulainn_(fate/kaleid_liner_prisma_illya) which... seems to be absolutely identical to lancer_(prisma_illya)? I know nothing about Prisma Illya, is there any functional difference between these two tags?

Doesn't look like there's any difference between them. Thus I manually moved all posts from cu_chulainn_(fate/kaleid_liner_prisma_illya) to lancer_(prisma_illya) since the implication to cu_chulainn_(fate)_(all) exists on the second tag. I guess some people mixed up using the full name + full copyright name with the class name + shortened copyright name.

Speaking of Prisma Illya, I need to add archer_(prisma_illya) to the BUR.

Before the BUR is approved, I just want to say Artoria Pendragon doesn't need a (Fate) because it's not a public domain name like the majority of Servants or the multiple personification anime (Kantai Collection, Kemono Friends, etc.), and there's no other franchise with an Artoria Pendragon the name could conflict with. For example, would you put a Fate parser on Emiya Shirou before another franchise produces a character named Emiya Shirou?

The main Artoria should just be artoria_pendragon, and the catchall artoria_pendragon_(all).

Benit149 said:

The trouble I found with cu_chulainn_(fate/grand_order) (his Caster variant) was that it was being used for images of his Lancer variant, which led me to believe that there was some confusion as to what the tag was inherently referring to. In fact, my frustration with fixing tags related to Cu’s class variants (and why Cu Caster wasn’t being tagged the same way as Gilgamesh Caster) was one of the many reasons I felt compelled to work on this mass update. That’s why I added class qualifiers to all variants of certain characters like Cu, Diarmuid and Gilles de Rais - their variants are only of class changes, nothing to do with special holidays. If the plain name was used as the default class’ tag, people may not know what it’s referring to.

This to me is exactly why the defaults need class qualifiers. This just shows how much people assume from the tag names and skip reading the wikis.

Servants with enough variants to have an (all) tag can get away with it to an extent, since hopefully casual taggers would see the (all) tag pop up in autocomplete and figure out from there that the only tag without a qualifier isn't the catch-all tag. You even said it yourself:

If the plain name was used as the default class’ tag, people may not know what it’s referring to.

We should give class qualifiers to all variants of Servants who have them. Who came first doesn't matter, excluding defaults from this is inviting people to misuse them. There's just no valid reason to exclude them, while cherry-picking other defaults to have them when all Servants are in the same boat with this. I would also remove the (all) qualifier and just use the plain names for the catch-all tags, but that's more for personal preference than anything.

blindVigil said:

This to me is exactly why the defaults need class qualifiers. This just shows how much people assume from the tag names and skip reading the wikis.

Servants with enough variants to have an (all) tag can get away with it to an extent, since hopefully casual taggers would see the (all) tag pop up in autocomplete and figure out from there that the only tag without a qualifier isn't the catch-all tag. You even said it yourself:

We should give class qualifiers to all variants of Servants who have them. Who came first doesn't matter, excluding defaults from this is inviting people to misuse them. There's just no valid reason to exclude them, while cherry-picking other defaults to have them when all Servants are in the same boat with this. I would also remove the (all) qualifier and just use the plain names for the catch-all tags, but that's more for personal preference than anything.

Sounds like a plan. It would be contradictory to exclude some while reworking others. When I get back on the computer, I’ll parse through them and update the BUR appropriately.

I do need to ask about Berserker/Lancelot though. Due to this character’s first incarnation being treated as a spoiler, and with Lancelot (Fate/Zero) being treated as a separate depiction from his Lancelot (Fate/Grand Order) incarnation, I opted to exclude any mention of them in the request. Should this be considered an exception to the rule, or does this character need to fit the rules despite their spoiler-y nature?

blindVigil said:

We should give class qualifiers to all variants of Servants who have them. Who came first doesn't matter, excluding defaults from this is inviting people to misuse them. There's just no valid reason to exclude them, while cherry-picking other defaults to have them when all Servants are in the same boat with this. I would also remove the (all) qualifier and just use the plain names for the catch-all tags, but that's more for personal preference than anything.

To me the valid reason to exclude them from being qualified is that they are not a variant, they're the base character. I guess we have different views on this ultimately, but to me it does absolutely matter which came first and which is the 'main' version because they are just that, the 'main' version of a character. I feel it'd be a bit like giving base appearance of characters in other gachas a qualifier rather than treating them like the base (especially if the only variant the Servant ever got is a holiday one.)

... I was gonna say that this is only really a problem for characters who do have catch-alls, but thinking about it now aren't we running into another problem? Having the base tag as a catch-all and all variants qualified would be one thing for characters who currently have catch-alls, but what about the majority the cast that doesn't have catch-alls?
As it stands, their base tag is currently both a tag for their base variant and a catch-all. Astolfo (Fate) is both a tag for his Rider version and a catch-all for Rider + Saber. Are we sticking with this way of functioning for characters without enough variants to have a catch-all, do we give every single character with more than a single variant a catch-all?

Well, ultimately, people already mistag Fate quite a bit. Whether it is mistagging variants despite descriptive names, tagging only the catch-all without tagging the variant, tagging the variant and the base and the catch-all, etc. What currently causes mistagging will still cause mistagging, in most cases because the taggers don't know Fate and its convoluted forms, variants, costumes aren't tagging-friendly. I don't think there is a perfect solution, and giving everyone qualifiers will just be a different model of consistency (on one hand "qualifier-less base, qualified variants" on the other hand "everyone qualified") with its own set of mistagging... ill say it again F/GO was a mistake

Benit149 said:

I do need to ask about Berserker/Lancelot though. Due to this character’s first incarnation being treated as a spoiler, and with Lancelot (Fate/Zero) being treated as a separate depiction from his Lancelot (Fate/Grand Order) incarnation, I opted to exclude any mention of them in the request. Should this be considered an exception to the rule, or does this character need to fit the rules despite their spoiler-y nature?

This one's one hell of a special case... I think if we want to keep the spoiler-y nature of his identity in mind when tagging, then the current solution is what works best for him specifically?

Astolfo said:

To me the valid reason to exclude them from being qualified is that they are not a variant, they're the base character.

Just seems like pedantics, to me. Would someone with no prior Fate experience who started playing FGO today even be able to tell the difference? Does the game actually tell you which servants came first?

... I was gonna say that this is only really a problem for characters who do have catch-alls, but thinking about it now aren't we running into another problem? Having the base tag as a catch-all and all variants qualified would be one thing for characters who currently have catch-alls, but what about the majority the cast that doesn't have catch-alls?
As it stands, their base tag is currently both a tag for their base variant and a catch-all. Astolfo (Fate) is both a tag for his Rider version and a catch-all for Rider + Saber. Are we sticking with this way of functioning for characters without enough variants to have a catch-all, do we give every single character with more than a single variant a catch-all?

I was under the impression that Servants without (All) tags were supposed to be tagged entirely separately. The wikis don't indicate this in any way. If Astolfo Rider is supposed to also be used for Astolfo Saber, then that makes it even worse to not give qualifiers to the other defaults.

Basically, servants without (all) tags use their qualifierless default tag for all variants, and thus can't be given a class qualifier, and servants with (all) tags use their qualifierless default tag exclusively for the default, but can't be given a class qualifier because veteran status? That's a messed up system in my eyes.

Personally, I like the idea of qualifier-less base forms. For characters like Minamoto no Raikou (fate/grand order) and Astolfo (fate), their base forms are very iconic, while their variants aren't that relevant compared to their base appearance. It somewhat feels right to search for Raikou and get both base and variant posts, if I don't want to see the variant I just need exclude it fron the search bar (her swimsuit lancer variant currently implicates the base form, which is not Astolfo's case). (Just for the record, I like Fate but I'm not into playing FGO and what I said only applies to servants with only one variant)

blindVigil said:

Just seems like pedantics, to me. Would someone with no prior Fate experience who started playing FGO today even be able to tell the difference? Does the game actually tell you which servants came first?

I can't say for sure, but I would say in most cases the default form of a character is pretty clear even to someone who starts playing today. It has more fanart, is generally a "vanilla" form (not Alter, not swimsuit, not etc.), is listed first in the list of characters, etc. Perhaps it's pedantic or nitpicky but it just feels important to me to make the distinction between the base character and its variants rather than handwave them all as variants.

I was under the impression that Servants without (All) tags were supposed to be tagged entirely separately. The wikis don't indicate this in any way. If Astolfo Rider is supposed to also be used for Astolfo Saber, then that makes it even worse to not give qualifiers to the other defaults.

Basically, servants without (all) tags use their qualifierless default tag for all variants, and thus can't be given a class qualifier, and servants with (all) tags use their qualifierless default tag exclusively for the default, but can't be given a class qualifier because veteran status? That's a messed up system in my eyes.

Well, now I'm not entirely sure how it was "supposed" to be when it was made but I can say that in practice, the qualifier-less tag for characters without an _(all) catchall is both a tag for its base variant and a catch-all for all variants. That's pretty much how it works already everywhere outside of Fate.

-On one hand the base is treated as the "main" character and thus also gets variant posts - think Kaname Madoka getting Ultimate Madoka posts, Taihou (Azur Lane) getting Taihou (Forbidden Feast) (Azur Lane) posts or, as is being done currently in Fate, Astolfo (Fate) getting Astolfo (Saber) (Fate) posts or Tomoe Gozen (Fate/Grand Order) getting Tomoe Gozen (Swimsuit Saber) (Fate) posts or Altera (Fate) getting Altera The Santa posts. There's nothing inherently wrong with this, it's a valid way of tagging this particularly when a character only has one variant and/or only has holiday variants that are, in practice, well and truly the same character. It's already a widespread way of tagging costumes and variants everywhere else also.

-On the other hand you get what is currently done with characters who have catch-all tags, wherein the _(all) catch-all is implicated by all forms, and the qualifier-less tag is the base version. This is a necessity for characters with many variants (I think originally the policy was 3+ variants?) because it becomes impossible to filter your search even with a gold account. Blame F/GO being F/GO and recycling the same three characters 50 times, but to use the most blatant example, if Saber was implicated by all her forms how could I possibly get exclusively Saber art in my search? I can't filter all the other variants out even with Platinum limit.
In this case qualifiers being given even to the base form for characters who do have a catch-all would be, I suppose, a necessity to reduce mistagging. worth noting that other gachas with a bunch of costumes don't go for catch-alls and simply stick with option 1, although I suppose in their case there's less of a filtering necessity because variants generally don't wildly differ unlike say Saber and Artoria Pendragon (Lancer Alter) and Mysterious Heroine XX (Foreigner). As usual it goes back to three characters being way outside of the mold and making this a headache to figure out. Option three, treat large variants entirely separately!!!

As it stands, the question then becomes: do we give every character a catch-all tag or do we continue functioning as we currently do for characters who don't have enough variants to warrant a catch-all? I'm of the opinion that giving everyone catch-alls is excessive, as it stands we could remove the unwarranted catch-alls (like Medb's and BB's) and fix up their tagging to match other catch-all-less characters. I like option 1 the most, option 2 is just a necessity for fringe cases.

As it stands, the question then becomes: do we give every character a catch-all tag or do we continue functioning as we currently do for characters who don't have enough variants to warrant a catch-all? I'm of the opinion that giving everyone catch-alls is excessive, as it stands we could remove the unwarranted catch-alls (like Medb's and BB's) and fix up their tagging to match other catch-all-less characters. I like option 1 the most, option 2 is just a necessity for fringe cases.

I suggest giving all characters a catch-all, because the Fate franchise is not dying, FGO is not stopping development, and unless you want to go through this all again later, I suggest doing some future-proofing.

elgee said:

I suggest giving all characters a catch-all, because the Fate franchise is not dying, FGO is not stopping development, and unless you want to go through this all again later, I suggest doing some future-proofing.

It wouldn't need to be a whole huge thing again later, once we are settled on a standardised way of functioning it more so becomes a case by case when one character eventually hits the "okay this one needs a catchall" threshold. Even with FGO being FGO I don't think it'll happen very often. But future-proofing is definitely a fair concern.

Also tangentially related, they just officially revealed Merlin (Fate/Prototype)'s design, which isn't like the fan design we were currently tagging as such. How do we handle a scenario like this (which could possibly happen again with Mordred (Fate/Prototype) later)? Keep the fan design and the new official design under the same tag? Migrate the current fan design to Merlin (Fate) + genderswap and tag the new Merlin as Merlin (Fate/Prototype)?

blindVigil said:

Basically, servants without (all) tags use their qualifierless default tag for all variants, and thus can't be given a class qualifier, and servants with (all) tags use their qualifierless default tag exclusively for the default, but can't be given a class qualifier because veteran status? That's a messed up system in my eyes.

Astolfo said:

Well, now I'm not entirely sure how it was "supposed" to be when it was made but I can say that in practice, the qualifier-less tag for characters without an _(all) catchall is both a tag for its base variant and a catch-all for all variants. That's pretty much how it works already everywhere outside of Fate.

To be honest with you guys, I am totally stumped on how to approach this, and I apologize for my lack of input in this debate. I'm the type of person who prefers an occam's razor approach to things, but I quickly had to learn that this won't work for the Fate franchise. BlindVigil is right that it’s a messed up system, but Astolfo is also correct that it’s consistently used for other series. Unfortunately, it seems that what works for other series doesn’t seem to be working for Fate. Yet if we use a radically different approach to tagging characters, other series may look to Fate and say, “Why are they doing it this way? Shouldn’t we be doing it too? Why is the Fate franchise being given such special treatment to tagging characters?”

To at least make my own understanding of the issue clearer, I outlined four options that we could explore. First, let me get my other responses out of the way.

mongirlfan said:

Personally, I like the idea of qualifier-less base forms. For characters like Minamoto no Raikou (fate/grand order) and Astolfo (fate), their base forms are very iconic.

Iconic, sure. But not everyone is going to know about them. I’d like to be as impartial as possible by gravitating away from notions like popularity and veteran status, for the sake of making chartags as self-explanatory and streamlined as possible. I’ve grown tired of old chartags being treated as sacrosanct and untouchable just because they’re ‘popular’ and ‘iconic’, and I’m happy to see that other series are making the move to update their single-name chartags to more modern standards.

I can see the merit in leaving default forms as just character_(fate) tags. Even so, I am just way too preferential to adding the class/holiday qualifier for non-fans’ benefit.

elgee said:

I suggest giving all characters a catch-all, because the Fate franchise is not dying, FGO is not stopping development, and unless you want to go through this all again later, I suggest doing some future-proofing.

Astolfo said:

It wouldn't need to be a whole huge thing again later, once we are settled on a standardised way of functioning it more so becomes a case by case when one character eventually hits the "okay this one needs a catchall" threshold. Even with FGO being FGO I don't think it'll happen very often. But future-proofing is definitely a fair concern.

Yes, indeed. Fixing everything in the here-and-now is all well and good, but we also need to agree on a system if we want to keep using it in the future. We really don’t know how long FGO is going to last, so we need a foolproof method of keeping up with new character releases. Astolfo may be right that the need to make catchall tags won’t happen often, but we definitely need to keep on our toes during the holidays at least, especially during summer events.

Astolfo said:

Also tangentially related, they just officially revealed Merlin (Fate/Prototype)'s design, which isn't like the fan design we were currently tagging as such. How do we handle a scenario like this (which could possibly happen again with Mordred (Fate/Prototype) later)? Keep the fan design and the new official design under the same tag? Migrate the current fan design to Merlin (Fate) + genderswap and tag the new Merlin as Merlin (Fate/Prototype)?

Good Lord… I’m suddenly feeling a bit of serendipity since the BUR has merlin_(fate) -> merlin_(fate/stay_night). But I digress.

I did spot the Kotomine Shirou (fanfic) tag during my search. Perhaps the same treatment could be done for pre-FGO Proto Merlin, like a merlin_(fate/prototype)_(fanfic) chartag. Or we could do merlin_(fate/prototype) + original since they technically are an original character, just inspired by a what if scenario of how the artist would interpret this character. Another option is to create a new gentag that denotes these types of characters, like fan_interpretation or something similar.

And now back to what I said earlier…

In my opinion, if the goal is to compile any and all images of a character while simultaneously streamlining the tagging process for non-Fate fans, all while establishing a system for future use, utilizing a catchall tag for characters with multiple variants is the preferred option. The only trouble is that making implication requests for the catchall tag with just two variants has been frowned upon, and asking taggers to fill in the catchall tags manually will simply not work.

If we want to make this a little less complicated, appealing to the wider community to reduce the stigma of making catchall tags for Fate characters with just two variants would be beneficial. There would also be the need to tell the community that Fate has to operate under its own tagging guidelines, and outline the reasons. That’s why I wanted to draft a Fate-specific tagging guide once we’re happy with a standardized method. Perhaps making it a sticky in the forums could be an option.

I’ve detailed four potential options as to which tagging system we could utilize. Although each of them are slightly different in approach, whichever one we settle on will dramatically impact how we edit tags and wikis from here on out.

OPTION 1: Catchall tag + default character gets an additional qualifier

astolfo_(fate)_(all)
astolfo_(rider)_(fate)
astolfo_(saber)_(fate)

PROS The cleanest, most intuitive method IMO. All images of a character are compiled under the umbrella, and the chartags describe what they mean, which may incentivize non-fans to at least do a little looking up to make sure they’re using the right one.

CONS: While these example tags are nice and short, there are other tags that will become quite lengthy under this method (like Minamoto no Raikou or Tamamo no Mae). Autocomplete may need to be heavily relied on for filling in those longer tags. Also rather cumbersome to maintain due to the ever-changing nature of the Fate series, and creating implications for every single character with just two variants can get annoying. Other series might look to Fate as an example and attempt to utilize the same system with their characters, which may overwhelm Danbooru with implication requests.

As a side note, the current BUR is attempting to deimplicate characters with two variants from their catchall tag (BB, Medb, Mordred, etc.). If this method is preferred, I would have to nix those characters from the BUR.

OPTION 2: Catchall tag + default character does not get an additional qualifier

astolfo_(fate)_(all)
astolfo_(fate)
astolfo_(saber)_(fate)

PROS: A step down from Option 1 because the default character is missing the qualifier, but there is the idea of some of these characters being iconic enough to not necessitate it.

CONS: Non-fans may not understand what the default tag is referring to and use it in passing, not realizing that they’re tagging the wrong variant. Otherwise, most of the cons from Option 1 would apply here.

OPTION 3: No catchall tag + default character gets an additional qualifier

astolfo_(rider)_(fate)
astolfo_(saber)_(fate)

PROS: The tags themselves are intuitive and describe the character succinctly.

CONS: No catchall tag for characters with only two variants. If a new user wanted to look up all images of that character, they’d have to use up their search doing a character_(variant1)_(fate) + character_(variant2)_(fate).

OPTION 4: No catchall tag + default character does not get an additional qualifier (currently what Danbooru uses)

astolfo_(fate)
astolfo_(saber)_(fate)

PROS: The easiest, most user-friendly method for non-fans.

CONS: Follow-up tag gardening is a total nightmare for Fate fans. The hope is to at least reduce the amount of gardening and find a happy middle ground for both camps.

Personally, I am in favor of giving default characters an additional qualifier while creating catchall tags. This will fulfill users’ desire to compile all posts of a character for filtering purposes, and the chartags themselves intuitively explain that, “Yes, this character has been separated into different classes/variants, so you need to do some additional lookup if you want to tag the right one.” This way, it may help in reducing the headaches involves with follow-up gardening for those in the know. Sadly, I believe that completely eliminating the gardening is truly impossible for a series as convoluted as Fate, so all we can do is minimize it.

This means that Option 1 is my MOST preferred choice, although I understand the many cons to using it. If the stigma involved with using umbrella tags for just two variants was reduced, then life would be so much easier…

Ugh, this is so hard.

I’ll step away from this discussion for a second and state that I haven’t had the chance to look through the characters who would require a class qualifier to their base variant. Once I sort through that, I’ll at least post them here without adding them to the BUR until we decide on something that we can (mostly) agree on.

Lucky for me, I already did most of the searching for these characters earlier, so it was just a matter of writing this to reflect what they would look like in a BUR. Should these be agreed on though, I don't want to add these to the current BUR yet since I think the current request is massive enough as it is. This will mainly serve as a visual reference for further discussion.

The only character I didn't do anything with was Illyasviel von Einzbern's Prisma Illya variant since trying to make some kind of illyasviel_von_einzbern_(caster)_(fate) tag would be redundant when the prisma_illya tag covers that already. Hard to say if that needs to be changed as well, or if that can be left alone.

rename abigail_williams_(fate) -> abigail_williams_(foreigner)_(fate)
rename anne_bonny_(fate) -> anne_bonny_(rider)_(fate)
rename arjuna_(fate) -> arjuna_(archer)_(fate)
rename astolfo_(fate) -> astolfo_(rider)_(fate)
rename atalanta_(fate) -> atalanta_(archer)_(fate)
rename bb_(fate) -> bb_(mooncancer)_(fate)
rename brynhildr_(fate) -> brynhildr_(lancer)_(fate)
rename carmilla_(fate) -> carmilla_(assassin)_(fate)
rename elizabeth_bathory_(fate) -> elizabeth_bathory_(lancer)_(fate)
rename florence_nightingale_(fate) -> florence_nightingale_(berserker)_(fate)
rename frankenstein’s_monster_(fate) -> frankenstein’s_monster_(berserker)_(fate)
rename helena_blavatsky_(fate) -> helena_blavatsky_(caster)_(fate)
rename ibaraki_douji_(fate) -> ibaraki_douji_(berserker)_(fate)
rename ishtar_(fate) -> ishtar_(archer)_(fate)
rename jeanne_d’arc_(fate) -> jeanne_d’arc_(ruler)_(fate)
rename katsushika_hokusai_(fate) -> katsushika_hokusai_(foreigner)_(fate)
rename kiyohime_(fate) -> kiyohime_(berserker)_(fate)
rename leonardo_da_vinci_(fate) -> leonardo_da_vinci_(caster)_(fate)
rename marie_antoinette_(fate) -> marie_antoinette_(rider)_(fate)
rename mary_read_(fate) -> mary_read_(rider)_(fate)
rename medb_(fate) -> medb_(rider)_(fate)
rename meltryllis_(fate) -> meltryllis_(alter_ego)_(fate)
rename minamoto_no_raikou_(fate) -> minamoto_no_raikou_(berserker)_(fate)
rename miyamoto_musashi_(fate) -> miyamoto_musashi_(saber)_(fate)
rename mordred_(fate) -> mordred_(saber)_(fate)
rename murasaki_shikibu_(fate) -> murasaki_shikibu_(caster)_(fate)
rename nero_claudius_(fate) -> nero_claudius_(saber)_(fate)
rename nitocris_(fate) -> nitocris_(caster)_(fate)
rename oda_nobunaga_(fate) -> oda_nobunaga_(archer)_(fate)
rename okita_souji_(fate) -> okita_souji_(saber)_(fate)
rename osakabe-hime_(fate) -> osakabe-hime_(assassin)_(fate)
rename quetzalcoatl_(fate) -> quetzalcoatl_(rider)_(fate)
rename martha_(fate) -> martha_(rider)_(fate)
rename sakata_kintoki_(fate) -> sakata_kintoki_(berserker)_(fate)
rename scathach_(fate) -> scathach_(lancer)_(fate)
rename shuten_douji_(fate) -> shuten_douji_(assassin)_(fate)
rename tamamo_no_mae_(fate) -> tamamo_no_mae_(caster)_(fate)
rename tomoe_gozen_(fate) -> tomoe_gozen_(archer)_(fate)
rename ushiwakamaru_(fate) -> ushiwakamaru_(rider)_(fate)

If there's need for exceptions and special rules for Fate, I think we don't need to blanket apply them to every single tag and character in the franchise, but only in the instances where it's needed. That was the whole reason for not giving catchalls to everyone before and I still think it applies now.
Blanket applying them to everything in the franchise just creates a needlessly heavy-handed and obtuse system, inconsistent with the rest of the site, for no real reason other than accommodating the very few fringe cases where the exceptions are actually needed. Let's be honest the only characters with enough variants to cause tagging headaches are pretty much all saberfaces. Artoria, Jeanne, Okita, etc... The only other character I can think of with a good bunch of variants is Cu Chulainn. Pretty much everyone else either has one single version, only has one variant which is usually a holiday swimsuit, or two variants (a regular variant + a holiday variant.)

As such, I'm personally of the idea that the most optimal way of doing it is sticking with OPTION 4: No catchall tag + default character does not get an additional qualifier (currently what Danbooru uses), which is the current way of doing things for characters with less than x variants (the vast majority of Fate characters), as well as the way tagging works in virtually every other franchise, including gacha franchises, even for characters with enough costumes to warrant a catchall under the Fate system. Under that logic, I don't agree with the changes proposed above either.

Then, if/when needs be and a character has enough variants that a catch-all is warranted (which is a rare occurrence and only needs to be treated case by case), using OPTION 1: Catchall tag + default character gets an additional qualifier seems the most sound and accurate way of doing it to me. Either option 1 as is, or option 1 without the _(all), eg. simply astolfo_(fate) for the catch-all and then astolfo_(rider)_(fate) and astolfo_(saber)_(fate) and etc.

Option 2 and 3 are, imo, tied as being the worst of both worlds.

And as well, I'll repeat that no matter what we do here, tagging Fate will be ass-garbage for non-Fate fans because most forms outside of holiday forms don't have a visually descriptive name at all; regardless of what qualifiers you tack on a tag or anything, non fans would have to fumble around and check the tags to see what is what anyway, much like I'd have to check the tags if I were to upload and tag Kantai Collection or Azur Lane because I know zero about those. I wouldn't expect AL/Kancolle tagging systems to become overcomplicated and obtuse to adapt to my non-knowledge because it's not going to help me tag that stuff ANYWAY if I don't know one thing about it.
Overcomplicating the tagging system won't change anything for non-fans, it'll just overcomplicate the system with additional implications and tags and etc where they aren't particularly needed, which is why I'm in favour of sticking with the least complicated option here (exceptions notwithstanding.)

Benit149 said:

OPTION 3: No catchall tag + default character gets an additional qualifier

astolfo_(rider)_(fate)
astolfo_(saber)_(fate)

PROS: The tags themselves are intuitive and describe the character succinctly.

CONS: No catchall tag for characters with only two variants. If a new user wanted to look up all images of that character, they’d have to use up their search doing a character_(variant1)_(fate) + character_(variant2)_(fate).

This is my preference. I don't think Fate necessarily needs to do what the rest of the site is doing, but it does need to be consistent with itself. I would rather treat Fate as one big exception than have to repeatedly add Fate characters to an ever growing list of exceptions to both Fate itself and Danbooru as a whole. Even if there are only a few characters that actually complicate the system at the moment, doesn't mean it'll stay that way. We can completely skip having to do a bunch of implications and deimplications for every servant if we just treat them as separate entities from the start.

It goes something like:

• Completely new servant is released: tag them "character (fate)" and be done with it
• Previous servant gets a variant: don't implicate the variant to the original, tag them separately, give the variant a class qualifier and rename the original to also have a class qualifier if it wasn't given one to begin with
• Original servant gets however many variants are required: create a catch-all tag, tag the new variants the same as the previous ones, implicate all variants to the catch-all.

The only problem I see with this approach is that you can't find multiple variants with a single tag until there's enough of them to warrant a catch-all tag. However, it also means you only need one tag to limit a search to one variant, instead of needing to add "-character" to only search for the original. No, this isn't how we do it with other franchises, like Azur Lane, but Fate has already established that it's not going to play by anyone else's rules.

OPTION 4: No catchall tag + default character does not get an additional qualifier (currently what Danbooru uses)

astolfo_(fate)
astolfo_(saber)_(fate)

In fact, the way the tags are currently used, astolfo_(fate) is the de facto catch-all tag and we don't have a default character for him (astolfo_(saber)_(fate) -astolfo_(fate) has 0 posts). So it is more like OPTION 4 : Catchall tag + default character doesn't get a tag

I prefer OPTION 1: Catchall tag + default character gets an additional qualifier. It makes it easier to search for either a particular form or all of them simultaneously.
Also, if an user is unsure what tag to use, he will be able to use the catch-all tag (let's hope he will also add a character_request) to at least put minimal information about the character. Finding posts with only a catch-all tag and no specific chartag is easy. For example, we can search for okita_souji_(fate)_(all) -okita_souji_(swimsuit_assassin)_(fate) -okita_souji_(alter)_(fate) -okita_souji_(fate). But without it, the user will probably put whatever is most popular appearance and it will be more difficult to find these mistaged posts.

However, if a character has only two or three forms, option 3 is fine too.

blindVigil said:

The only problem I see with this approach is that you can't find multiple variants with a single tag until there's enough of them to warrant a catch-all tag. However, it also means you only need one tag to limit a search to one variant, instead of needing to add "-character" to only search for the original.

I think this is the main reason why Option 3 is counter-intuitive. It doesn't accomplish its goal fully, or rather, it accomplishes its goal by taking away something that is currently a possibility. It switches the paradigm from having to search "character -variant" for just the original, to having to search "variant1 variant2" for all variants (which would only be a thing in Fate), while simultaneously taking away the possibility of 1-tag searching all variants of a character as is currently possible both in Fate and everywhere else. If that's the option to go for then it might as well be Option 1 instead which is pretty much "Option 3 + catch-alls" - which retains the option to search for all of a character in one tag, and also gives the option of searching for a specific variant including the base version, which is what it's trying to accomplish. At the end of the day, Option 1 is pretty much "Option 3 except the cut-off to have a catchall is to have a single variant".

That said I stand by the stance in my previous message, but above all I think Option 3 wouldn't be a good thing at all and it doesn't solve the problem, it just shifts it elsewhere.

No, this isn't how we do it with other franchises, like Azur Lane, but Fate has already established that it's not going to play by anyone else's rules.

Fate not playing by anyone else's rules doesn't mean we have to turn everything on its head and do things the opposite way instead. If there's a way to handle the exceptions while remaining consistent as can be with the rest, then why not? In a sense what I propose IS treating Fate as one big exception, but it tries to remain consistent with the rest of Danbooru where applicable too (which is and will remain the vast majority of the cast), rather than throw out consistency with the rest of the site and being only consistent with itself just to accommodate the few fringe cases that exist.

If the list of exceptions grows, it grows, but I really don't think it will be that big of a problem outside of the most popular characters that are already a problem to begin with and will continue getting variant after variant, and perhaps one or two characters outside of those who will grow to have enough variants and variants of variants to become a problem.
Outside of the "problem children," FGO by and large introduces either completely new characters with each story chapter, or swimsuits/christmas versions of existing characters most of which don't have variants, or non-holiday variants for characters that don't have any (Astolfo, Diarmuid, etc.)

To me handling the few exceptions that break the mold as they come is a better option than either overcomplicating the system and blanket giving catch-alls to everyone, or entirely separating variants without a catch-all for a majority of the cast.
Being honest I don't even think we would need catch-alls in most cases even with several variants like Cu Chulainn and doing it the Azur Lane way (which is basically Option 4) would be completely fine for everyone other than the biggest exceptions like (again) Artoria or Jeanne where there's variants, and variants of variants, and variants of variants of variants.

Rignak said:

In fact, the way the tags are currently used, astolfo_(fate) is the de facto catch-all tag and we don't have a default character for him (astolfo_(saber)_(fate) -astolfo_(fate) has 0 posts). So it is more like OPTION 4 : Catchall tag + default character doesn't get a tag

That's how it currently works yeah, although I don't think it was officialised anywhere to use the base tag as a catch-all but I think it just became a thing after the previous Fate rework because it seemed logical and consistent.
Currently the way to search exclusively the base form of Astolfo is "Astolfo (Fate) -Astolfo (Saber) (Fate)", but this is pretty much how it is for everything else outside of Fate too.

I'm in favor of option 1, it both reduces the burden on non-fans because it doesn't require any previous knowledge and reduces the amount of gardening required from fans. Stubbornly sticking with option 4 is what got us in this mess to begin with. Option 2 is severely counter-intuitive for non fans ("why is there both a tag with no qualifier and one with an '(all)' and which one do I use?"). Option 3 is an absolute non-starter since t only makes things worse.