>>12629
>>12632
I have yet to come down to a good description for what namespaces are myself. Here is my current first draft:
Namespaces are good when:
They are a higher category (evangelion
is a series)
They are useful to highlight (characters are important)
They are useful to search for (creators are often searched for, and 'creator:*anything*' has value)
They are useful to group together (multiple creators is useful to know, when listed next to each other)
I've been approving 'clothing:' siblings on the PTR for a little while now and I overall like it. I'm mixed on some others though. My ideal solution here is to extend tag siblings to allow clientside preferences and then for you to say "If a group of siblings includes one with 'hair:' namespace, prefer that". I have found that it is easy for users to objectively agree that 'hair:long hair' and 'long hair' have the same semantic meaning, but the big subjective disagreement is over which is better.
An actually bad namespace, imo, is one that breaks the first rule above. 'male:erection' is an artifact of how some gallery sites do various female/male focus on tags, but I would rather 'male erection' (which could nicely have parents 'erection' and 'gender:male'). 'erection'
is not a 'male'. Also 'erection:male'.
'general:coffee cup' and 'object:pencil' are technically correct but overspecific for most users, but again I think the specificity of namespaces is highly subjective, so the true answer is to let users define what namespaces tags could have and let them then customise what they prefer to show.
If you were going for 'hairlength:short', I'd
probably try to aim for
hairlength:short hair for similar reasons, or go to the higher category of 'hair:short hair'. 'short hair'
is both a 'hairlength' and a 'hair', but 'short' can mean a bunch of stuff.
I am not confident though.
NEW THREAD
>>12641