Should we have a Fancy winged Utsuho Pool?

Revival: Continued discussion here instead of in the pointless pools thread.

We should avoid creating pools for every single character in existence and instead use the existing tags.
The alernate_weapon tag was created exactly for the purpose of identifying images of character's with their usual weapon depicted in a special/different way, which makes the "[Character]'s amazing *" pools redundant.

If needed, the tag could be renamed to:

Schrobby said:

Elaborate_weapon.

Also elaborate_wings might be a good idea. I think there's a difference between drawing Flandre with modified standard wings and Flandre with a different kind of wings, like angel_wings, where alternate_wings would apply.

Also, alternate_wings, which does cover both the "fancy wings" pools (as per wiki definition) and completely different wings, can be split into two tags.

I do think we can get rid of these specific character specific pools, but I do not believe the replacement can be tagged based and will have to be pool based to begin with. Labeling something as being "fancy" or "elaborate" is a subjective judgement once you leave the things that are overly elaborate, and so are concepts better suited to being made into pools (like an "elaborate weapon," "elaborate armor," and "elaborate wings" pool).

Using just the alternate_* tags to try and cover the concepts in my mind doesn't work because while it can encapsulate these images it is not trying to encapsulate the images for the same reason. The alternate_* tags try to encapsulate the concept "different from the norm" (which is can be extremely broad depending on definition), but these pools are trying to encapsulate the concept of "more detailed/elaborate than the norm" (at least that is more or less the wording of some of these pools). I kind of think the "elaborate_*" collection is actually kind of more useful because it has a narrow range of what it is covering and what will be under it more unified in what will be found.

I think some of these "alternate_*" tags might be overreaching in what they're trying to encapsulate. The alternate_wings tag seems kind of less useful because it covers all "different from the norm" wings without classifying what that difference is. Is the difference color? Is the difference wing type? Is the difference detail/style? We do not have an "alternate_hair" tag trying to encapsulate the alternate_hairstyle, alternate_hair_color, and alternate_hair_length tags, yet the alternate_wings tag is essentially that for what should be alternate_wing_type, alternate_wing_color, and "elaborate wings."

I'd be in favor of covering these concepts with tags instead of pools where possible. Subjective pools that aren't strictly defined tend to get less useful as time goes by, just like how by now people dump pretty much any pic where the ass is the focus of the image in the "Perfect Ass" pool, they also tend to dump any pic where there's some difference in design to these pools (the Fancy Winged Flandre pool is a good example of this).

NWF_Renim said:
Labeling something as being "fancy" or "elaborate" is a subjective judgement once you leave the things that are overly elaborate, and so are concepts better suited to being made into pools (like an "elaborate weapon," "elaborate armor," and "elaborate wings" pool).

[...]

We do not have an "alternate_hair" tag trying to encapsulate the alternate_hairstyle, alternate_hair_color, and alternate_hair_length tags, yet the alternate_wings tag is essentially that for what should be alternate_wing_type, alternate_wing_color, and "elaborate wings."

We have 3 tags for costumes:
alternate_costume for completely different costumes,
adapted_costume for other costumes styled/patterned after the original desigtn
embellished_costume (wiki: "A character's regular outfit made more elaborate")

An example for Flandre:
alternate_wings: post #777267 (Flandre with angel wings)
adapted_wings: post #667384 (rainbow pattern preserved), post #689859 (basic physical form preserved)
an "embellished" equivalent would be overkill (better just use only "adapted") and I can't find many examples. probably something like post #501504

S1eth said:

We have 3 tags for costumes:
alternate_costume for completely different costumes,
adapted_costume for other costumes styled/patterned after the original desigtn
embellished_costume (wiki: "A character's regular outfit made more elaborate")

An example for Flandre:
alternate_wings: post #777267 (Flandre with angel wings)
adapted_wings: post #667384 (rainbow pattern preserved), post #689859 (basic physical form preserved)
an "embellished" equivalent would be overkill (better just use only "adapted") and I can't find many examples. probably something like post #501504

The problem is again that the "adapted_*" tags are asking a fundamentally different question than the "elaborate_*" collections. When something is supposed to go under the "adapted_*" term that should mean you're asking the question "is this <object> based or referencing the original <blank>?" Where in the case of some of these "alternate_*" tags it is asking the question "is it different from the original?" Something can be elaborate and not be based on the original, so "adapted_*" which implies that there is an original doesn't properly encapsulate the concept of the pools. "Elaborate" can be something that is based on the original or something that is a new creation that is intricately designed, thus can be under either "adapted" or "alternate" depending on the depiction. That was actually an error I made in my previous post, as "elaborate" should not necessarily have an original design to be based on (which is also what would make it a subjective concept).

Another note though is that "adapted_*" and "alternate_*" are actually somewhat opposites depending on how narrow "alternate" is defined, as "alternate" asks "how different from the original is it?" while the other asks "how much is it based on the original?" "Embellished_*" here is then asking the question "Is it more detailed than the original design?" which is a concept that can overlap with "adapted" but "embellished" requires the original design be still be maintained while "adapted" merely requires that the outfit references the original.

Speaking of the "embellished_*" tags, the term "embellish" implies that there is an original design and so makes itself different from "elaborate" in that "elaborate" should not require an original design, but simply be based on if it appears complex/intricate. "Embellished_*" probably could be used to cover some of these pools and in a format that would make it a tag as opposed to a pool, but because "embellished" implies an "original" design or a "base" design it can not actually properly replace more general "elaborate_*" pools. While you could have a "embellished_wings" tag to cover Flandre's wings that appear complex, it has the double edged sword of preventing things like an image of an angel or a demon with very detailed wings from being put into a collection that can be readily be found. These generic characters don't really have an good "base" design to say it is "embellished" but you can have an idea in saying it is "elaborate." The same also goes with weapons, you can have an "embellished_weapon" to cover characters with their own unique weapons but you couldn't do that for generic weapons and such. These pools would still have the same impact you're asking for though as they're not limited to a specific characters and combining the pool with a specific character would in general give you the proper results these current specific pools give. Anyways these are just some of my thoughts on the matter.

The problem is again that the "adapted_*" tags are asking a fundamentally different question than the "elaborate_*" collections.

Assumption: With ' "elaborate_*" collections ' you mean the fancy winged Flandre/Nue and Komachi's/Utsuho's Amazing * pools and not general (character independant) collections.

Since I looked trough the Flandre pool and couldn't find a single good example of what I would call "Flandre's wings, but more elaborate", I say that these pool are not "elbatorate_*" collections. They most often do not add more detail, but change certain aspects of the original object, which is why I chose adapted_*.

Something can be elaborate and not be based on the original, so "adapted_*" which implies that there is an original doesn't properly encapsulate the concept of the pools.

This sentence appears to be totally unrelated to the discussion. The pools in question are all bsed on an original object. A pool that fits your description better is Exquisite Clothes/Underwear.

I'm not asking for a general tag or pool that collects any kind of *object* that looks elaborate.

"Embellished_*" probably could be used to cover some of these pools and in a format that would make it a tag as opposed to a pool, but because "embellished" implies an "original" design or a "base" design it can not actually properly replace more general "elaborate_*" pools. While you could have a "embellished_wings" tag to cover Flandre's wings that appear complex, it has the double edged sword of preventing things like an image of an angel or a demon with very detailed wings from being put into a collection that can be readily be found. These generic characters don't really have an good "base" design to say it is "embellished" but you can have an idea in saying it is "elaborate." The same also goes with weapons, you can have an "embellished_weapon" to cover characters with their own unique weapons but you couldn't do that for generic weapons and such.

We do not have any general "elaborate_*" pools to replace that I know of, and I don't think we even want to have any. Sounds a lot like favourites pool / vip quality to me. The closest pools I can think of are (again) the exquisite * pools.

S1eth said:

Assumption: With ' "elaborate_*" collections ' you mean the fancy winged Flandre/Nue and Komachi's/Utsuho's Amazing * pools and not general (character independant) collections.

Since I looked trough the Flandre pool and couldn't find a single good example of what I would call "Flandre's wings, but more elaborate", I say that these pool are not "elbatorate_*" collections. They most often do not add more detail, but change certain aspects of the original object, which is why I chose adapted_*.

Well I was more referring to the proposed current not existing "collections" that would be character independent (was trying to avoid calling it a tag or pool), but I guess I was somewhat including the current character specific pools as well.

As for your example with the Flandre pool, that is the oddball out of the current 4 pools, as the other 3 explicitly refer to detail where the Flandre pool only refers to "unusual wing designs." Also while two of them do say based on their original object, the Utsuho's pool says "noticeably more elaborate arm cannon than she's been officially depicted with" and has images that look nothing like the original (like post #944536) and so the pool isn't limited to those that are just "adapted" (should also note not all the weapons in there are arm cannons, so they're not necessarily matching the definition of the pool either). Also for the other 2 pools, while they do say based on the original object there are images in those pools that aren't really based on or "adapted" from the original item that are being included in those pools (like post #1294018 and things like post #660595). Sure post #660595 is also a scythe, but outside of that I think it is questionable to say it is based on her original one. Being an item of the same type does not necessarily mean one is an adaptation of the other, having a character like Saber with a generic sword doesn't automatically make that generic sword an adapted version of one of the swords she normally is depicted with (like caliburn or excalibur) without something more concrete to link the items.

S1eth said:

This sentence appears to be totally unrelated to the discussion. The pools in question are all bsed on an original object. A pool that fits your description better is Exquisite Clothes/Underwear.

I'm not asking for a general tag or pool that collects any kind of *object* that looks elaborate.

It is relevant given that not everything under those pools like you're claiming are adapted, which is why "adapted" is not the appropriate word to migrate these pools to. We can have much broader pools that would properly function as replacements without limiting it to named characters. What I'm proposing covers specifically the concept of "detail" and can be applied to "all characters" as opposed to using "embellished" or "adapted" and making the concept apply only to "some characters" that have preexisting material to judge them by. Having the requirement of preexisting material to judge the image by results in leaving out the bulk of any kind of original work, which could also have rather detailed or elaborate features.

I don't think I had said anywhere that this was the kind of thing you were asking for, but this is what I'm proposing based on my own view of the issue. I think it is a better fit than trying to put them under the "adapted_*" or "alternate_*" tags.

We do not have any general "elaborate_*" pools to replace that I know of, and I don't think we even want to have any. Sounds a lot like favourites pool / vip quality to me. The closest pools I can think of are (again) the exquisite * pools.

We don't have it cause it doesn't exist yet, much like there doesn't exist an adapted_wings tag. I'm not sure why you're nitpicking the fact they don't exist when you're trying to have these moved to tags that don't necessarily exist yet either. The core concept of 3 of these pools is "being detailed" and while it can be subjective, as what qualifies as detailed enough for one person might not be for another, that doesn't rule it out as something that can't be used.

They might be more like or potentially identical to the "exquisite *" pools you brought up, though the term "exquisite" imo brings up also the concept of aesthetics and the image being pleasing instead of just simply being detailed. Also those pools require that the items be made to look realistic, and I'm not sure everything that is detailed necessarily has to look realistic. They are certainly not like the VIP quality or favorites pools you're suggesting though, as the concept of the proposed pools is not based on whether someone likes the image or finds it beautiful, but on whether the object in question in the image appears detailed or not.

If people prefer using that which only applies to named established characters, then I'd rather support following "embellished_*" then instead of placing them under "adapted_*" or "alternate_*," as at least it follows the concept of 3 of the 4 pools, which are being based on level of "detail" instead of "whether or not the <object> is based on the character's original <object>" or "whether the <object> is different from their original <object>."

You shouldn't use the word "replace" when you're talking about things that do not exist.

Really, the pools are just a mess. They don't fall all under one definition that we can shoehorn into a single tag or pool. While the Utsuho pool does say "noticeably more elaborate arm cannon than she's been officially depicted with" , it also says "joke cannons are also acceptable". If we look at the contents of the pool, we can see that it collects any "arm cannons" different from the original. As long as it's either arm cannon or a "joke cannon", it's OK.

Many arm cannons have nothing in common with the original and would fall into the alternate_* category:
post #671702, post #558782, post #645191
This includes the "joke cannons":
post #701030 (vuvzela), post #1293828 (pringles)

Some others are more detailed/elaborate/adapted versions of the original:
post #482034, post #758103, post #365703

Thereby, it accepts both adapted_*/embellished_*/more elaborate_* versions of the weapon as well as completely different alternate_* ones.
And they must be tagged or pooled for what they really are.

You can make an "Elaborate Weapons" pool and an "Elaborate Wings" pool, but it won't be a solution to this problem. We still need at least alternate_* tags, because not all of them are elaborate.
These pools then need criteria for inclusion. I mean what is this: post #1449089 and post #1221565. I wouldn't call it elaborate, and it's not alternate either.

Almost wish we simplified all this down to an "alternate design" tag, but that's probably too broad.