On the scope of the trait_connection tag

@Shinjidude: I don't really have a strong opinion on this...

2019-03-22T14:09:29-04:00

I don't really have a strong opinion on this one. I could see gathering a ton of similar characters cross-copyrights as something unique that we might want to keep distinct, but like Blue Trident says, gathering a bunch of similar characters within a series with a ton of characters also has the same feeling. I'd be fine with BrokenEagle's intraconnection suggestion if we really want to be able to keep things separate.

In either case, it might be good for us to define a lower limit on number of characters allowed for the tag's use within a single series (e.g. Kitakami and Ooi together as torpedo cruisers shouldn't be enough to trigger the tag).

It might also be a nice idea if we add a policy to leave a comment outlining the similar trait when adding the tag, as the trait might not be immediately obvious, especially to those not familiar with the series (e.g. post #3186569 or post #3355457).

Part of me feels too that this concept is more appropriate as a pool than a tag, since tags are generally meant to be visually apparent, and the connections being identified here don't always meet that description. Having ~3k posts though, it's probably too big for a pool.

@Blue_Trident: For my part, I don't think trait connection...

2019-03-22T02:35:50-04:00

For my part, I don't think trait connection needs to be limited to only crossovers, cosplays or parodies. The wiki definition doesn't reflect how the tag is actively being used, trait_connection -crossover -cosplay -parody. There are many posts that group together characters from the same copyright based on unique shared traits, and I believe it's worth being able to search for that. This is especially relevant for copyrights with a lot of characters, where certain arrangements of characters might exist only because of trait connections.

Here are some examples of current posts depicting characters from the same copyright based on traits: post #3400135, post #3186569, post #3200243, post #3133237, post #2955982, post #1590052, post #2530352, post #3016640, post #2694461, post #3330698.

That's the kind of usage I'm referring to, characters that wouldn't necessarily otherwise be depicted together and share an identifiable trait. There's not a good way to find those posts without trait connection.

I don't really see sudden spamming of the tag as a likely problem. We don't tag Kantai Collection, Azur Lane, Girls Frontline etc. with personification, so why would we tag all their posts with trait connection. We only use seiyuu connection when there's a clear reference, even though it would apply to large swaths of Kantai Collection posts. I'm sure we can redefine trait connection with reasonable limits if need be.

@BrokenEagle98: Well I for one have been using the tag at times...

2019-03-22T02:30:00-04:00

Well I for one have been using the tag at times with the GuP copyright on posts where all of the characters in the picture are the overall commanders in their high school. It could also be used for other such positions, such as all gunners, all drivers, all loaders, etc. But it doesn't have to be just the job/position, but it can also be other traits like headwear. An example is post #3160114 which shows all of the characters that are depicted wearing helmets in the series. Another is post #2957213 which shows all of the glasses-wearing characters

I might support a tightening up the requirements of the trait connection tag, but then would want some way to tag or mark these other similarities.

I also noticed the color connection and hair color connection don't have the parody/crossover language like all of the others. We might want to standardize all the *_connection tags if we're going to do this.

Split connections by copyright association

So all of the current *_connection tags would either apply to crossover/parody situations only, and some other qualifier would apply to the situation of just a single copyright. The following are all of the synonyms for connection which could be *_QUALIFIER candidates.

link, relationship, relation, relatedness, interrelation, interrelatedness, interconnection, interdependence, 
association, attachment, bond, tie, tie-in, correspondence, parallel, analogy; bearing, relevance

For example:

Crossover/parody: *_connection tags
Single series: *_relation tags

Keep the current tags but add a specifier tag

If the crossover or parody tags aren't sufficient for this, then something else could be devised. Maybe intraconnection to specify in-series connections?

Side topic

Trait connection is kind of open-ended. Perhaps it should be broken down. Using my examples from above, there could be the job_connection/position_connection tags (don't know which ones would be better), and the attire_connection tags. Then as trait connection becomes more broken down, more tags would/could be created. Not sure if trait_connection should be completely deleted or left in as some kind of catch-all tag. Or perhaps it could function as an umbrella tag?

@indexador2: A few days ago, post #3408112 has led to a...

2019-03-22T00:39:03-04:00

A few days ago, post #3408112 has led to a disagreement with @Blue_Trident about the scope of the tag trait_connection. The wiki of the tag specifies its use for "A crossover, cosplay or parody image" and, as far as I see, it's the most common use of the tag.

However, Trident apparently supports expanding the tag to include pictures of characters of the same franchise, in their usual clothes - a move that I'd oppose, since by their very nature characters of the same copyrights share many traits already (the example I gave being tagging all kancolle posts with trait_connection for having characters with the shared attribute of being ships of the Imperial Japanese Navy).

It is also my opinion that, whenever possible and practical, the tagging directives of the wiki should be followed, and if they are to be changed, there should be a previous discussion no whether the alternative system would be better. So, I'm opening one here - should the scope of the trait_connection tag be what it is or does it need changing?