My proposal for fixing commander doll. An alternative I've considered is recategorising it to a character tag and qualifying it but I don't think there's enough merit in doing that unless there are people who want to explicitly filter or search for posts with the characters interacting with the doll so I'm opting to go with the way we usually handle this case.
Feel free to provide alternatives if you think this is insufficient. One thing is for sure though; commander doll should not be remaining as an unqualified general tag.
I don't think we usually use objectification and character doll together? I assume objectification is more for cases where there isn't an already existing fitting tag like the examples in the wiki.
A character doll is by definition objectification. I can only think of the lack of implication as to why they aren't used together. It is worth noting that the sentiment was shared when an attempt to imply a bunch of character_x tags to a new umbrella tag was countered as just being objectification in topic #30519.
I don't see the problem with the commander doll having a chartag. Ave Mujica has a couple chartags for dolls that are smaller or not much larger than commander_doll currently is. (However, an argument could be made that, even with the low postcounts, those dolls are more important in Ave Mujica than the commander doll is in Nikke.)
There's a single image, post #9582445, which involves the commander along with a character doll that isn't the commander doll. If commander_doll is nuked, this would become hard to search for (an admittedly extremely niche search.) While this is the only image like this that I could find, Nikke characters aside from the commander do seem to get dollified reasonably often, so I think it's mostly happenstance that there are few images like this and the situation might change in the future.
I do agree that if the tag continues to exist in some form, it needs a qualifier.
For the record, this would open the door to tags like cutie (umamusume), for the plushies you can get out of claw machines in that game (ex: post #8745421). Do we want tags like that?
I might be slightly horrified if we end up with general tags replacing a two-tag search for plushies of characters that aren't actually significant parts of images. The character tag route was one I considered but didn't really think it was an important part of NIKKE frankly, nor if it's an approach that would see consensus or admin approval.
I do know at least that the commander doll has become a recurring part of NIKKE content. I'd just hope that it wouldn't set a weird precedent of creating chartags for every single dollified character because of some of the tag maximalist idea where if we draw even just an inch, suddenly that inch turns into ten miles.
I will say in terms of character dolls getting specific gentags that could potentially be my fault with Lady Yu doll, however I still stand by the rationale I gave for the tag's existence in the wiki.
Ave Mujica has a couple chartags for dolls that are smaller or not much larger than commander_doll currently is. (However, an argument could be made that, even with the low postcounts, those dolls are more important in Ave Mujica than the commander doll is in Nikke.)
Mutsumi dolls are effectively characters (or at the very least, character forms) so they deserve tags. Not so much for a regular doll that could instead be searched for with doll_(nikke) (if it was more populated).
How many known examples of NIKKE characters being dollified specifically in the likeness of the commander doll and not a generic doll actually get posted? If the results aren't significant enough then the utility isn't there to need to separate the Commander in an object form from other characters that are also in object form. That's a question I should've established in my other reply.
The more I think about it, the less I like the idea of the character tag route.
Absolutely not, those should all get nuked regardless of what happens to commander doll itself. This is the kind of tag maximalist behaviour that leads to tag bloat.
A character doll is by definition objectification. I can only think of the lack of implication as to why they aren't used together. It is worth noting that the sentiment was shared when an attempt to imply a bunch of character_x tags to a new umbrella tag was countered as just being objectification in topic #30519.
On a side note, I would prefer character doll and objectification to stay apart. Character doll may be a bit confusing, but if you look at the list of character_* tags, it's clear that having the appearance of a character crafted/printed on a medium isn't exactly the same thing as objectification. Otherwise you're suggesting we implicate all of them.
The issue I have with that take is that you're compounding how we handle two different scenarios as one unified topic. Character doll is by definitionobjectification because it's an alternative physical representation of a character turned into an object. Prints are a different thing altogether. We've never tagged a print of something as the actual thing or as a conversion of the actual thing beyond what implications afford (very lightly related topic #29975).
Character doll being objectification is not a zero-sum game to suggesting all character_* tags be implied or considered objectification at all, nor is it really confusing either. Half or more than half of those tags are prints and prints have always been just the tag of the original object + the relevant print tag. Character dolls are not prints. Two very different scenarios.
I don't see any value in going "um akshually" in order for character doll to imply objectification (even if not literally through an implication). Even just looking at wikis and how the tags are used, a large part of objectification is about "weird" objects, see post #9712263 for example. character doll (and related tags like character charm) keep the human-like representation. They're conceptually quite different even if both (usually) involve inanimate objects.
I might be slow but could you rephrase that for me a bit? I don't think I really understand after rereading it a few times. That first bit especially is throwing me off.
EDIT: I'll try and respond based on the way I've tried to understand though: the wiki doesn't really suggest that it's for "weird" objects and more just about a general statement that it's for characters turned into inanimate objects, which character dolls obviously are. Even looking at the tagged posts, they're both a mix of literal objects with the likeness of a character plastered on them or a character that keeps their traits, so I don't think what I said is against how it's used now; and if it is, then it really either needs discussion or gardening to be clearer, in my opinion.
As I put earlier in my topic, it was already said that these count as objectification per topic #30519, so it's less of my own opinion (even though I'm personally aligned with that take) and more on a precedent from a prior attempt to deal with character_* tags. Unless you meant imply in the sense that character doll inherently infers objectification so it doesn't need the tag while the actual objectification tag is good for highlight more obscure and non-defined forms of inanimately representing a character. Indeed, I don't disagree that an object bearing another's likeness, like the difference in post #8735465 versus post #7638200, is the same concept, but I figure the tag at least might apply.
As above, I'll give people the same option as the original post but without objectification added. I think it's weird not to add it and it feels like a strange hidden rule to me that because a specifically defined form of objectification exists, that tag doesn't apply while the specific one does. It feels to me like not tagging one of the other -ification tags plus the end result of the transformation.
Overall though, I think this solution is better than the character tag route.
