Template talk:Tagging

Series Types

There needs to be a better "type" for H-games than just "video game" or "visual novel". A great number of H-games do not rightly fall under either of those. (I've added taimanin asagi just now with the simple type "Adult Game", as ja.Wikipedia refers to it.) PeopleDon'tDanceNoMore (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions. - Maximum Joe (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

A real template and about alias

Is it good to make it a real template? Like this

{{Tag
Catagory=(Content, Creator, etc)
Type=
Description=
Japanese=
Related=
Note=
Slave Tags=
}}

If it is useful I'll try to work on it.

Another thing is about the alias, if something different appears on certain release's credit page, is it good to point them out or just ignore them? Or, set up more pages? I'm a bit confused.--Lord of Evil ^{Leave Message} 01:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The situation could be more complicated if the circle/artist has some international authorization, making both transliteration and translated names exist, the eng-dl site consists a lot of examples, another situation could be the authorized Chinese/Korean publishment.--Lord of Evil ^{Leave Message} 01:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

English DLSite counts for exactly nothing. Generally, if it's not raw, it should be an absolute last resort. PeopleDon'tDanceNoMore (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

That's what I'm fearing about. There are already tags being grouped using reference from english dl site, see my posts in "The Tag Grouping/Blacklist Discussion".--Lord of Evil ^{Leave Message} 04:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's really enough formatting to get any benefit from abstracting it.

As far as different spellings or translations generally go, pick one, and then as far as we're concerned, that's all there is, no need to mention anything else: if there are other versions, they can be grouped and linked in the Slave Tags link. PeopleDon'tDanceNoMore (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The spelling is not a big deal cause the slave tag system is good enough to solve it, but the actual alias is confusing, at least they don't seem look-alike.--Lord of Evil ^{Leave Message} 04:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. Examples can be very useful. (Specific examples.) PeopleDon'tDanceNoMore (talk) 05:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You know I was told to follow this template instead of adding "Alias" section, all I can do is to put it in "Note", either to repeat the link for both "note" and "related", or don't the alias info it in "note" at all. The most recent exampe, artist miyauchi izumi and onizuka takuto with his (not their) related circle (not circles) crown brigade and alice-do‎, both artist and circle have alternative names, now put them altogether in the related section, the reader must be confused, if just the spelling difference, they should know it's the same artist/circle. This is not. I'm a bit confused too. Note that these tags in the gallery is a mess too, some gallery title used both of the names for a same circle, but actually only one appears on the credit page. A clear format to deal with alternative names, pseudonym changing and related problems will be helpful. --Lord of Evil ^{Leave Message} 05:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

This is my philosophy: As a rule, any circle name that is not an alternative spelling or a translation is a different circle. I don't rightly know what's up with Crown Brigade and Alice-Do, but IMO they are different circles. Would you say that Work X that says "Crown Brigade" in its credits was by "Alice-Do"? I wouldn't. At best, I would say it's by the same person who makes up Alice-Do.

For that reason, I would never want an "Alias" entry for circles. If absolutely need be, "Related" can link one circle to another and "Note" may explain the circumstances. Such cases may include direct inheritance, like with oboro and oboro and tempo gensui dou; or concurrent output in different areas, like with studio sunadokei and b side. Any other (possibly uncofirmed or unconfirmable) cases should only be linked through the Artist's page, IMO. (This means that, IMO, "Crown Brigade" and "Alice-Do" should not be directly linked; they should only both appear on the Artist page(s).)

As for Artists...if we make an "Alias" entry, I think we shouldn't have a "Related" entry any more, but instead a "Circle" entry. As it stands, "Related" is vague, and therefore appropriate for handling both aliases and circles; but if we were to take the aliases out and put them in their own entry, it would be pointless to retain that vague abstraction.

I can kind of go either way, really. I think there's a decent sense in clicking a "Related" link on one Artist and ending up at another, and letting that imply that they are the same person. Certainly it's not perfect "sense", though, which is why I would also be happy with specific "Alias" and "Circle" entries instead. PeopleDon'tDanceNoMore (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I don't really like the concurrent output example/situation...The thing with "studio sunadokei" and "b side" is that they have multiple artists, so on the Group page is really the only reliable place to explain the difference between them. So that one is more about linking related Groups that are made up of multiple Artists. PeopleDon'tDanceNoMore (talk) 07:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The point of these pages is only for basic tagging/renaming information. 1 spelling (both for Romanized and Japanese) per creator is the preference. Tag grouping can cover for different romanization spellings and any creator that went through a name change or anything else is best left to the experts that can read Japanese and don't need the wiki anyways. - Maximum Joe (talk) 17:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

More detailed format rule discussion

Just a few problems occurred when adding ehwiki pages, most about alias/name changing confusion.

Artist Name Changing

In this situation, if an artist ceased using one pseudonym by continuing with another totally different one,

1. is it good to indicate it on ehwiki pages, making separated pages and link them
2. or simply group them and make only one entry.

this problem will extended to the artist's relate circle tag wiki page(s).

ANSWER: #1. Regarding circles (or groups), we'll do this: on a circle page, do NOT list an artist name as related if that artist name has not been credited for work in that circle. PeopleDon'tDanceNoMore (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Artist Multiple Pseudonyms

In this situation, the artist didn't cease one pseudonym use but he's got multiple alternative names might be used at the same time for some other work.

If each of the pseudonym is used for specific areas

(i.e commercial/non-commercial, male/female oriented, h/non-h material, etc.)

1. is it good to put this information under "Note" section
   1. then set up different pages, link them in the "Related" section, This might cause confusions to relative Circles
   2. or, one entry for one artist is enough by using redirections, This might cause confusions to taggers and renamers
   3. some other good points I havn't thought about yet
2. or, just ignore it, Causing more confusions

If the pseudonym use is unclear

1. group it to main/most used one regardless what the credit page says, then we need only one ehwiki entry
2. make multiple wiki entries, link them
   1. note it
   2. ignore the note
3. treat the artist like different persons

ANSWER: For the former, #1.1 is acceptable. Regarding circles, refer again to the guideline given in the intial section. For the latter, it should probably be dealt with case-by-case. I am confused about what sort of cases you are imagining (or what specifically you're thinking of), so I do not know how to give a single answer. PeopleDon'tDanceNoMore (talk) 01:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Artist Multiple Circles

In this situation, an artist might associated with more than one circles.

If the circles just have different names but have same activity schedule, same topics even same homepage

1. treat "them" like one and group them
2. "they" are separated circles

If the name difference is caused by translation/transliteration/typo

1. group them (This one is clear)

If the minor circle name is not very active anymore but the major one is largely used

1. treat "them" like one and group them
2. they are still different ones

Also, if we decide to note these thing and make "related" sections, is it good to

1. "relate" all the associated circles/names
2. just list the corresponding one

ANSWER: (Taking each subsection as A, B, C, D...) For A: #2. For B: yes, #1 (assuming that case is true). For C: #2. For D: I assume you mean between artists and circles, and the answer to that goes back to the guideline I gave in the initial section: only link Artists/Groups that were credited together (I think that's what you mean by #2, but I'm not sure). PeopleDon'tDanceNoMore (talk) 01:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Artist multiple tags/forms

This situation may be caused by translation/transliteration/typo/abbreviation, and the name forms (romanized, katakana, hiragana)

translation/transliteration difference, typo and abbreviation

1. group them (This one is clear)

different forms

1. list the different forms
2. ignore them

ANSWER: For the former, generally yes, #1. For the latter, I'm not sure what you mean, but...put the original/Japanese form under "Japanese", and generally that's all. PeopleDon'tDanceNoMore (talk) 01:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Different artists but one tag due to romanized names

Need formats for the following:

1. ehwiki entry, current we using "artist xxx", "circle xxx", but they are not tags, and general wiki entries should be "xxx (artist)"
2. A format to list these artists and their related circles.

ANSWER: I don't understand what problem you're trying to describe here. PeopleDon'tDanceNoMore (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

the above what I can think about atm. --Lord of Evil ^{Leave Message} 00:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)