I found this translated somewhare...
Not my cup of tea, but I figure someone might like it...

This is the only Sea Angels work I've ever seen translated. So they're also called "Zanburg's" eh?

I like Sea Angel better.

Dnice said:
This is the only Sea Angels work I've ever seen translated. So they're also called "Zanburg's" eh?

I like Sea Angel better.

They're ONLY called Zanburgs AFAIK.

cannibalkitteh said:
They're ONLY called Zanburgs AFAIK.

There was a siterip of this floating around for a while now, where the files were titled "Sea Angels." I suppose that's not what the artist calls them.

Dnice said:
There was a siterip of this floating around for a while now, where the files were titled "Sea Angels." I suppose that's not what the artist calls them.

No it's not. IT's what /d/ on 4chan called them because they are idiots who cannot READ simple Katakana.

VulpesFoxnik said:
No it's not. IT's what /d/ on 4chan called them because they are idiots who cannot READ simple Katakana.

Anything is simple to someone who understands it…

Dnice said:
Anything is simple to someone who understands it…

It's called WIKIPEDIA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kana

I call for leaving the "Sea Angel" tag, along with the correct name. For anyone searching for this art, they may only know it by the name "Sea Angel."

VulpesFoxnik said:
It's called WIKIPEDIA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kana

Most people would not think to look to Wikipedia for language translation.

Dnice said:
I call for leaving the "Sea Angel" tag, along with the correct name. For anyone searching for this art, they may only know it by the name "Sea Angel."

I'm not quite sure you understand the purpose of the tags. They are to provide ACCURATE information. They are already tagged with Alien, so they can find them that way. There is no reason to perpetuate bad information. These boards primarily serve this purpose.

VulpesFoxnik said:
I'm not quite sure you understand the purpose of the tags. They are to provide ACCURATE information. They are already tagged with Alien, so they can find them that way. There is no reason to perpetuate bad information. These boards primarily serve this purpose.

Well that's a can of worms. If content is known far and wide by an inaccurate term, then categorizing the content with the inaccuracy will help people find it. Then, once others are aware that they've been misinformed, the inaccuracy can be done away with. This is practical use of the system, and it works.

Dnice said:
Well that's a can of worms. If content is known far and wide by an inaccurate term, then categorizing the content with the inaccuracy will help people find it. Then, once others are aware that they've been misinformed, the inaccuracy can be done away with. This is practical use of the system, and it works.

E621 has already been through this processes. You missed the memo, and you just got it again, when CannibalKitty sent it to you.

VulpesFoxnik said:
E621 has already been through this processes. You missed the memo, and you just got it again, when CannibalKitty sent it to you.

Oh? Well I'm fairly new here. Direct me to the memo so I can avoid future mistakes.

Dnice said:
Oh? Well I'm fairly new here. Direct me to the memo so I can avoid future mistakes.

cannibalkitteh said:
They're ONLY called Zanburgs AFAIK.

By the way THIS is a sea angel, and they look nothing like the Zanburg.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sea_angel.jpg

That's CK's statement, not an official guideline from e621.

I've seen a lot of content here tagged in a much less practical manner than I suggest for this image, terms that no one would search for in relation to the image tagged, and e621 doesn't seem to mind.

I suggest the tag and a note. So that people misinformed can find the image, and then learn that they're actually called Zanburgs. Just putting the word Zanburg in the tag list tells no one anything.

I don't think ANYTHING in the world looks like a Zanburg.

Dnice said:
That's CK's statement, not an official guideline from e621.

I've seen a lot of content here tagged in a much less practical manner than I suggest for this image, terms that no one would search for in relation to the image tagged, and e621 doesn't seem to mind.

I suggest the tag and a note. So that people misinformed can find the image, and then learn that they're actually called Zanburgs. Just putting the word Zanburg in the tag list tells no one anything.

I don't think ANYTHING in the world looks like a Zanburg.

It's called the wiki. Click this -> Zanburg

VulpesFoxnik said:
It's called the wiki. Click this -> Zanburg

You just updated the wiki. And my point still stands. e621 doesn't seem to have a problem with what people want to tag an image.

Most people who come here probably will never go to the wiki.

If keeping the term "Sea Angel" helps people find the image, it should stay, and then there should be a note informing them of the correct name.

my case in point is here:

http://danbooru.donmai.us/post/show/435405/alien-breasts-gif-petaro-sea_angel-tentacles

nothing on Zanburg. Not even a google search turns up these images under Zanburg.

Dnice said:
Most people who come here probably will never go to the wiki.

And most people won't be doing a search for "sea angels" either... Sorta an odd thing to search for, and if they're looking for it, they should already know the artist's name as well.

Dnice said:
If keeping the term "Sea Angel" helps people find the image, it should stay, and then there should be a note informing them of the correct name.

AFAIK, it's inaccurate. There's no reason to propagate inaccurate terms. I've not read EVERYTHING about them, but I've done a cursory scan of much of the info and not found anything about "sea angels".

Dnice said:
my case in point is here:

http://danbooru.donmai.us/post/show/435405/alien-breasts-gif-petaro-sea_angel-tentacles

Oh well, if danbooru says so! ;)

Dnice said:
nothing on Zanburg. Not even a google search turns up these images under Zanburg.

Really?

http://images.google.com/images?source=hp&q=%E3%82%B6%E3%83%B3%E3%83%96%E3%83%AB%E3%82%B0&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

cannibalkitteh said:
And most people won't be doing a search for "sea angels" either... Sorta an odd thing to search for, and if they're looking for it, they should already know the artist's name as well.

Not so. As VF mentioned, the term Sea Angel was bandied about on 4chan. How many 4chan users come to this site? How many have the Petaroh siterip? Danbooru has this tagged as Sea Angel, so there definitely are people that know it as such.
And I knew the term "Sea Angel" long before the artist's name "Petaroh." Until today, I forgot the artist's name, but remembered Sea Angel.

AFAIK, it's inaccurate. There's no reason to propagate inaccurate terms. I've not read EVERYTHING about them, but I've done a cursory scan of much of the info and not found anything about "sea angels".

I agree. But as I mentioned before, if 95% of the people looking for this content knows it by an inaccuracy, then that inaccuracy should stay, and there should be notation corrected them as to the proper term.

Really?

Yes, CK. Really! I said "Zanburg." Not ザンブルグ. Most people on this site aren't going to search for ザンブルグ.

Dnice said:
Not so. As VF mentioned, the term Sea Angel was bandied about on 4chan. How many 4chan users come to this site? How many have the Petaroh siterip? Danbooru has this tagged as Sea Angel, so there definitely are people that know it as such.

Although Danbooru has alot of well meaning people, e621 is NOT danbooru. We get alot of bad tags from there, and brining one more is not going to help the status. This is also NOT 4chan, nor are thier users are very informed. It is also the job of the rippers to propperly document and inform those who do not know. This a large difference between 4chan and e621.

And I knew the term "Sea Angel" long before the artist's name "Petaroh." Until today, I forgot the artist's name, but remembered Sea Angel.

But now you have been informed and should know better.

I agree. But as I mentioned before, if 95% of the people looking for this content knows it by an inaccuracy, then that inaccuracy should stay, and there should be notation corrected them as to the proper term.

Ignorance is not an excuse for bad tagging. It's like labeling a solo male masturbating as gay, it is not appropriate here. And again, they can find it under the umblella term 'Alien'.

Yes, CK. Really! I said "Zanburg." Not ザンブルグ. Most people on this site aren't going to search for ザンブルグ.

If they know the string they will, and we do not force them to search that string in our text box. Pixiv, the site where most of this stuff comes from tags them as such.

Dnice said:
I agree. But as I mentioned before, if 95% of the people looking for this content knows it by an inaccuracy, then that inaccuracy should stay, and there should be notation corrected them as to the proper term.

I thought nobody checked the wiki? What use is a note that nobody sees?

Dnice said:
Yes, CK. Really! I said "Zanburg." Not ザンブルグ. Most people on this site aren't going to search for ザンブルグ.

The artist is Japanese, what sense would it make to search in English for?

cannibalkitteh said:
I thought nobody checked the wiki? What use is a note that nobody sees?

Not in the wiki, on the image itself.

The artist is Japanese, what sense would it make to search in English for?

The name "Petaroh" is the English spelling of the artists' name. A search for "Petaroh Sea Angel" in Google brings up these images. A search for "Petaroh Zanburg" does not.

VF, this seems to be an issue for you, as you've corrected people in other posts where these images appear.

By being a stickler for correct terminology ONLY, you are restricting access to these images for people who know them as Sea Angels. I'm not saying that the proper name should not be used, only that the term by which the majority of people know this artwork by should also be used, to help them find it.

After all, this is the only place where someone has told me the correct name. If others can't find the images, they may never know the correct name, and miss out on all the other work.

Let me put this in a different light:

Let's say you have an online store selling widgets. Weeks pass, and no sales. You find out that for some reason, people know your product as "flidgets," not "widgets." If you're smart, you would go into the backend of your site and categorize your product as both "widgets" and "flidgets" in order to bring searchers to your site to buy your product. Once they come, you can set them straight.

Technically, you're correct on the name. But in real-world practicality, you have to make room for what people actually do, not just what's in the book.

Dnice said:
Let me put this in a different light:

Let's say you have an online store selling widgets. Weeks pass, and no sales. You find out that for some reason, people know your product as "flidgets," not "widgets." If you're smart, you would go into the backend of your site and categorize your product as both "widgets" and "flidgets" in order to bring searchers to your site to buy your product. Once they come, you can set them straight.

Technically, you're correct on the name. But in real-world practicality, you have to make room for what people actually do, not just what's in the book.

Some people know black people as niggers. You think we should start using that term too?

VulpesFoxnik said:
Some people know black people as niggers. You think we should start using that term too?

Wow.

The term "niggers" is so old, that the majority of the english speaking populace knows it to relate to black people. Anyone searching on the term "Niggers" is looking for something specific to that term, often something derogatory.

These images are not that old, and not well known. It would be helpful to tag them using the terms that have been used to identify them to the majority of english speakers that have come across them, Sea Angels.

There may come a point that the images become so well known that everyone knows them as Zanbergs, and using the term Sea Angel is no longer necessary.

There's an inherent futility in online debates, so I have a suggestion.
Why don't we use both names in the tags, and place a note on the hottest/weirdest images stating "These are correctly known as Zanbergs, not sea angels - VulpesFoxnik." That way, people can find and be corrected on this all at once.

Dnice said:
There's an inherent futility in online debates, so I have a suggestion.

Asides from the fact that it's the cool-kid thing to point out, what exactly <em>is</em> the difference between a debate held online and one held in real life? The issues are the same and the opinions just as entrenched whether you can see the person you are debating with or not. You are also still molding opinions of those that will later read said debate.

I really hate that flimsy quibble. It only serves to derail the discussion.

As a more on-topic aside, this is an English website; Adding foreign ascii characters is about as helpful to archive navigation as a Sherpa is to deep sea exploration.

Keep the English artist names. No one likes a Wapanese hot-shot pretending people are impressed by their knowledge of the language. Making life easier for them is anti-productive to our ends.

I really hate that flimsy quibble. It only serves to derail the discussion.

Not so flimsy. There's a difference between having a debate/discussion with an individual face-to-face, and having a debate online. It's hard to quantify, because it involves being able to see emotion, and hear inflection, and not deal with instant access to an almost limitless resource like the net.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jun/02/comment.charliebrooker

@Dnice:

Though I'm impressed you bothered to provide a point of reference, it hardly backed up your point: that somehow physically sensing a person's emotional exchange has anything to do with the usefulness of a debate. It's easy enough to tell when you are getting under someone's skin, even while typing. Anonymity is an illusion, especially when a person is paying close attention to how you are writing.

There is right, wrong and opinion. The winner of the debate is either clear or discerned individually by the viewers. This is not changed by the physical arena.

I strongly disagree with Charlie. He isn't speaking of debates. He's speaking of random arguments between anyone with an opinion. As always, the debate is only as intelligent as the individuals duking it out.

Well just the facts, sir. Is that what you're saying? That all exchanges between human beings should be weighed, right or wrong, on whatever happens to be the truth?

And what if either individual's access to the truth is limited? What if because you're holding an encyclopedia and I'm not, I can't look up a little factoid that may have helped me win a debate?

When you say the winner is clear: clear to whom? If you mean the viewers, how can you be certain their judgement isn't effected by emotion? You can never remove these human components from any human interaction, especially debates.

The arena, or in this case access to information, does have an effect on the outcome of a debate. The more well informed individual will often win.

As for the usefulness of a debate, if we were to somehow take the entire body of debates and arguments and qualify them by who changed the other's mind, we'll see that most debating is futile. It is very difficult to get anyone to see things your way, even when the facts are on your side.

And of course, there's the argument. Man says "I'm in love with you." Woman says "No, you're not." and the debate is on. How can one win this? How can you prove who the winner is?

@Dnice:

If one says an apple is an orange, and the other argues that it was, indeed, an apple, the winner is clear. This is one possible outcome of a debate; One that is not lesser or greater regardless of setting.

If you are implying that internet access gives an unfair advantage in a debate, I'd ask to whom goes the handicap? Both debaters have access to the same volume of information, and so as would be the case in an offline debate, the more astute individual "wins".

On that note, a <em>win</em> is denoted either by logic (see the above example) or by the "individual". When I say <em>individual</em> I mean anyone who comes to view the debate after the fact. I am not speaking of changing the opponent's mind. You're not likely to change the mind of the person you're debating with <em>in the real world</em> either, are you?

The idea is to get the viewers to <em>think</em> and form a (hopefully enlightened) opinion based on the opposing views presented to them.

This is the sole benefit of a debate, online or offline. There is little discernible difference.

We may both have internet access, but it is entirely possible that one of us has access to more information than the other, or can access it swifter than the other. A few years back, articles on the New York Times website could only be accessed by subscription.

If I had a subscription and you didn't, you didn't have access to a very vast source of information that could have helped you make your point.

If a "win" is decided by the individual, then again emotion comes into play. Reading this static text, an individual can make a very different decision than if they were standing in front of two debaters, based on the passion (or lack thereof) of the arguees. Hence the difference between online and "live" debates.

Here's another thing. You make a post. I have time to pick apart every single paragraph in your statement, research it, find references and rebut. Now you know in a live debate, this does not happen. People often only respond to the very last statement their opponent made, unless they're taking notes. That sort of thing can go on for hours. Another stark difference between the arenas.

If the benefit of an online or offline debate is to help the viewer form an opinion based on what was presented, it can still fail, based on the viewer. You've made my case here with your first posting. The argument here had nothing to do with posting foreign ascii characters. We were discussing whether to tag these images by the correct name only (Zanburgs), or use the correct name AND the term by which most people know these images (Sea Angel).

You didn't see that. That's the crux of this debate. You can't form an opinion on this debate without seeing that. Hence the futility I spoke of. These things are too subjective.

With that, I'm going to declare you the winner, as it's futile to me, and it's 3:30 in the morning.

By the way, I agree with Dnice; The point of tags is not to provide information about the image.

That's what your eyes are for.

The point of tags is to provide the means of navigating through an otherwise unorganized archive of images. Giving obscure tags because they are more politically correct is functionally useless.

Dnice said:
You've made my case here with your first posting. The argument here had nothing to do with posting foreign ascii characters. We were discussing whether to tag these images by the correct name only (Zanburgs), or use the correct name AND the term by which most people know these images (Sea Angel).

You didn't see that. That's the crux of this debate. You can't form an opinion on this debate without seeing that. Hence the futility I spoke of. These things are too subjective.

You got me there. I hastily misinterpreted what the discussion was because I didn't read anything up to the offending comment.

I don't see the connection to our discussion you're trying to point at, though. By your logic, debate is subjective regardless of information or setting due to possible individual error by either the debaters or the audience.

That would mean once again, online or offline, debate in and of itself is useless. Since discerning opposing standpoints is necessary for forming opinions and learning in general, this can't be true.

Whether or not you declare me the winner, the purpose of the debate was satisfied...And so am I.

Night-night.

Anonym said:
WHARRGARBL

Alright masturdebaters, you're going nowhere with this at this point, probably due to intentional trolling at this point.

It comes down to this: Establishing fact and opinion and propagating information is what a Wiki is designed for.

The tagging in a database is structured for searchability, not accuracy. Imagine how useless Google would be if they deliberately filtered out results that weren't technically accurate in terms of spelling or other lingustic considerations (such as accent marks just to name one example).

If this artist's work is being propgated in file sharing communities as "sea angels" then there's no constructive reason to not tag it as such. Providing superfluous information is virtually the goal of the tagging process to begin with.

VulpesFoxnik said:
Some people know black people as niggers. You think we should start using that term too?

Way to play the race card, Vulpes. Seriously, though, your argument was valid and rational up until that point.

Folks, never play the race card in a debate. EVER.
teh moar u no
====----*

I think it would be best if at this point we would take this conversation to http://e621.net/forum/show/1010 . It would be best if we continue this there, and ally my replies will be posted there. I urge you to do the same.

VulpesFoxnik said:
Durpadidddlydoo

Have fun with that. I'll be over here, not being a sociopath.

I did not think this would cose this much droma, but I'm glad it did! by the way I'm was first named oldasge, is was a tipe-O, so I got a new acount. ya

P.S.
new acount guys. I was oldasge, I'm now old_sage ya!
fixed the tipe-O.

Ya know, that bottom-right panel kinda makes me think...I've heard of sucking like a vacuum cleaner, but damn woman. o.o;

VulpesFoxnik said:
I think it would be best if at this point we would take this conversation to http://e621.net/forum/show/1010 . It would be best if we continue this there, and ally my replies will be posted there. I urge you to do the same.

i'm about 100 years late but i see they aren't tagged as sea angels, so i guess you won, hurray for proper information

Smiley_J said:
i'm about 100 years late but i see they aren't tagged as sea angels, so i guess you won, hurray for proper information

Shit I feel old now reading all of this.

And here I thought YT comments were where you find the most asinine arguments, huh.