Posted under Tags
The wiki clause that object namesake is mutually exclusive with name connection is outdated, and back from when the name connection tag was still namesake. See forum #220164 for the thread where where namesake was aliased to name connection, and then forum #221652 (which was about a year later) for the implication
Bump
If this BUR gets rejected, someone has to change name_connection wiki for it to include person + object connections (the way it is currently tagged, due
to the implication).
If this BUR gets approved, the tag should be manually cleaned
HeeroWingZero said:
The wiki clause that object namesake is mutually exclusive with name connection is outdated, and back from when the name connection tag was still namesake. See forum #220164 for the thread where where namesake was aliased to name connection, and then forum #221652 (which was about a year later) for the implication
I'd also like to quote what @MaskedAvenger said in the original thread.
MaskedAvenger said:
I think we need is a separate implication rather than alias: "namesake" for obvious namesakes (same personal name or nickname) and "name connection" for part-namesakes and unrelated characters with similar surnames.
I can see use in having a tag for complete namesakes. Given that name connection now catches a lot more types of connections.
BUR #28075 has been approved by @nonamethanks.
create implication kanji_connection -> name_connection
And this should also be implicated.
Another question I have is now that name connection acts as an umbrella tag, should kanji connection catches all types of partial namesake or remains strictly for kanji connections? For example partial namesake in other or across multiple languages.
I originally added post #3681998 and post #4039965 to kanji connection due to lack of a better tag. Now that we have name connection, I'm not sure if they should stay there.
Updated
magcolo said:
I can see use in having a tag for complete namesakes. Given that name connection now catches a lot more types of connections.
We do have historical name connection for characters named after the same historical or mythological figure/vehicle/etc (eg. Azur Lane and Kancolle takes on the same ship being depicted together), though I suppose there could be room to make tags for other specific types of name connections
HeeroWingZero said:
We do have historical name connection for characters named after the same historical or mythological figure/vehicle/etc (eg. Azur Lane and Kancolle takes on the same ship being depicted together), though I suppose there could be room to make tags for other specific types of name connections
I know, but that's different. Historical name connection is for characters intentionally based on a preexisting figure. In fact, there has been a character rejected for this tag because although she shares the same name, she isn't based on the same figure.
Here I'm talking about coincidental namesake essentially because they don't fit in the historical connection tag.
The bulk update request #27232 (forum #284432) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.
The bulk update request #28075 (forum #290926) has been approved by @nonamethanks.
