Template talk:Tagging

Characters included in Series Page

• Characters
  1. Character 1 (Japanese Name)
  2. Character 2 (Japanese Name)

It will be like this. Any suggestions? Varst (talk) 10:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Their Japanese name would already be listed in their page (which eventually all characters will have). Also, why number them? - Maximum Joe (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

What Joe said, mostly. I like a format like this. One point to note is that the lists are alphabetized; I think that's important. Regarding the heading size and the "fake" (manual) divider, I prefer doing it like that because using the larger header (with the automatic divider)...1) looks quite large right under the main bullet points, 2) puts more white space above "Male" (the space between the "Character" line and the "Male" line is actually the same, but the divider's place between them isn't, so it looks different). PeopleDon'tDanceNoMore (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. Do it that way then. Varst (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

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)

Actually, I get what you mean for 2 now. You're saying that we need a format for pages (tags) that describe multiple artists (or circles or etc). PeopleDon'tDanceNoMore (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Content Tag Examples

(Inspired by the current gymshorts page. I may ramble a bit, but I hope I can get my point across.)

I don't think that the current placement of "Examples" (after Slave Tags) is good design (although I'm not at all a "designer"). "Slave Tags" is markedly different from the other headers, since it doesn't have a ":" and it's a (blue) link instead of just bolded (and also since it's often just "Slave Tags", without anything else after that; tossing another attribute after that is kind of unbalanced). Being so different, I think it really belongs at the very bottom of a tag's attributes.

On the other hand, I could see some argument for putting "Examples" at the end of a tag page. Perhaps the examples part shouldn't be shoe-horned into the bulleted list exactly...

Could example images not be included as thumbnails?

In short, I'd just like to encourage some brainstorming before anyone starts putting the current format to wide-spread use.

PeopleDon'tDanceNoMore (talk) 11:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Examples always go last in pretty much everything I've ever read, hence the decision to put them at the bottom. The example links are subject to change as this is not the approach I originally wanted. There should not be any widespread adding just yet. - Maximum Joe (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Content Tag template design?

I kind of think the whole Content Tag template could use a bit of a redesign. Originally, with only three bullet points (aside from Slave Tags), the format was fine, fairly compact and straightforward. But with the addition of Male, it got a bit crowded. And if Examples is going to be another bullet point, it could get even more crowded.

Off the top of my head, I think it might be nice if the template could use iconographs somehow, to make the bullet points trivially distinct. Like putting a male/"Mars" symbol in front of (or in place of?) the "Male:" header.

I'd love to hear any other ideas, or if you just agree that the template is crowded.

(We may also want to consider making an actual wiki code template for the Content Tags, especially if we add images.)

PeopleDon'tDanceNoMore (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh well, that is back to some idea here :D Instead of using "Male", let's take "Namespace" if female and even more NSs are taking into use in the future, I can't remember where I put up this idea before. Now we need to rule out what to reserve and what to revamp if redesigning the format.--Lord of Evil ^{Leave Message} 13:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You're all free to make new design templates on your personal pages. The changing of Male: to Namespace: is fine too. - Maximum Joe (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'll let it stew and try to work on it sooner or later, then. PeopleDon'tDanceNoMore (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I've created a template for now. I've only copied the current format, though; any actual (possible) redesign will have to wait a bit longer. But if you think it's acceptable, I'd like to start substituting the template into the content tag pages. By the same token, if anyone who edits an untemplated content tag page would also substitute in the template, that would be great. I'm also not sure about the preferred format for Slave Tags on a page like gender change. In general, any comments about the template are welcome, as well (on the template's talk page, preferably). PeopleDon'tDanceNoMore (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, you were talking about a general template for all types of tags at once; I'm only talking about one for "Content". Certainly there's an argument for templates for all definitions (one for each type, that is; like a Content template, a Character template, etc.), to simplify any possible future changes to the design/format. But if you're going to go and replace every page with templates, it's almost better to do that only when you have to (or right from the beginning), like when you want to add something new across the board or change the design (like with Examples for Content tags) -- and at the moment, none really need it or are very close to facing any kind of "redesign", except perhaps Content. Which is why I've only suggested it for Content at the moment. PeopleDon'tDanceNoMore (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)