Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-29521428-20191208173851/@comment-29521428-20191209161644

Holokami wrote: Over-specificness makes things messy, cluttered, confused, difficult to read, difficult to understand, and/or makes the idea far too specific for the information, in regard to SPW, to be relevant to more than one character. If you start getting too specific, you’ll end up writing character power biographies rather than a page on a power encyclopedia.

And yes, making tags that are too specific on an image board will cause clog and clutter, because they have to think about what tags are the most predominant. (If you're looking for a specific character, use their name/franchise). I don't exactly buy it all exactly. Over-specificness does not guarantee such factors, there's a difference between it being used poorly, and to using it properly. The former contains those issues, while the latter case has no messy sentences, no clutter, confusing sentences, not unclear or even difficult to read descriptions. To reiterate, if you all disallow over-specificness, why not allow it if it was done well, and having a hands on deck relation to the subject?

Over-specificness is a good thing because again, it adds more clarity, as well as honesty, to explain how something works, what the faults are, the origin of something, etc etc. If Derpibooru won't listen, then there must be a compromise. Either they make a side tags menu for the less relevant tags to be added into, or even make a sort by list to sort out the less relevant ones at the bottom of the menu or something.

As for the Superpower Wiki, if that will still be an issue to the staff here, then my suggestion is to either A) make the allowance of adding both abridged and extended capability sections, or B) allow the capability of adding tabs into the capabilites, witching from abridged to more extended descriptions. The latter case can also apply to limitations, and possibly the whole nine yards. Trust me, this is as close to balancing it out as I get.