That's a good point, and I see how the noms do make sense as they are. I'm just not sure if it would mess with AO3 to accept them under the Relationships field without any qualification (since that field is what is being used for noms in the tagset). E.g. for Avatar, The Gaang is a Character according to AO3 even though it's a group of people. I'd therefore err on the side of accepting it into the tagset as "Solo: The Gaang (ATLA)" or, barring this, as "The Gaang - Relationship (ATLA)"... Do you think it would be okay to nom these Tolkien groups as "Solo: Group of Huorns" or "Solo: Forest of Huorns" or something similar?
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2021-05-10 04:35 pm (UTC)