I removed the tag from one already, but then I thought to ask, should they actually have that tag, or no? My opinion is that Fakemon should get it, but not customized/named legendaries, such as a black Latias, or one with a gem in her forehead.

Black Latias are not from the canon, so therefore it's a fan character.

I really don't know whether Latias should really get fan_character tag instead of just alternate_color. It's less different from canon version then anthrofied latias and we're not tagging them with fan_character tag.

But hey, at least there's no new tag for latias in every possible color.

Unless it's a specific character like from an ask blog (e.g., ashchu) I'd be hesitant to tag it fan_character. I always felt that tag was more about "someone's specific character" than "a generic character just drawn a little differently". Then again that might be a bit of carryover from when we had it as original_character, but I think the reasoning is probably sound.

Then again, I tend to tag it for any non-canon MLP characters, regardless of where they came from... so I may not be the best judge.

It's a tricky area, but if it's the same as canon but just an alternative color scheme, then it gets alternate_color. If it's been customized more than just a changed color scheme but still clearly based on an existing franchise then it's fan_character.

For pokemon, this may seem a little bit like a 'percentage of change ratio' but that's only because pokemon straddle the line between being both a pseudo-character and a species. It's a little easier to see the differentiation between alternate_color vs fan_character when seeing an alternate_color form of rainbow dash vs an mlp fan_character who was designed to look like rainbow dash's sister. Non-canon characters are just easier to spot in other fandoms.

furrypickle said:
It's a tricky area, but if it's the same as canon but just an alternative color scheme, then it gets alternate_color. If it's been customized more than just a changed color scheme but still clearly based on an existing franchise then it's fan_character.

For pokemon, this may seem a little bit like a 'percentage of change ratio' but that's only because pokemon straddle the line between being both a pseudo-character and a species. It's a little easier to see the differentiation between alternate_color vs fan_character when seeing an alternate_color form of rainbow dash vs an mlp fan_character who was designed to look like rainbow dash's sister. Non-canon characters are just easier to spot in other fandoms.

I would say that if it isn't a shiny colored latias (a CANON alternate color for those unfamiliar with the term) is a fan_character at least regarding to Pokemon

How about:

shiny_pokémon if it's a shiny.
alternate_color if it's a recolor.
fan_character if it has significant distinguishing features across several images, one of which could be color scheme

I have a question about the fan_character tag. Was it intended to replace character names on certain posts? I see a lot of mlp posts tagged fan_character with no name. Is that because the name is unknown?

Lance_Armstrong said:

I have a question about the fan_character tag. Was it intended to replace character names on certain posts? I see a lot of mlp posts tagged fan_character with no name. Is that because the name is unknown?

No not replace. Note that fan_character has several implications to it at the moment. The reason that they have no name is mostly because tracking down the name is sometimes a pita or they have no name, or they have a generic name, and it's not usually worth the effort unless there are multiple posts with the character.

Adding the fan_character tag even without a character name does help to distinguish it from canon though (both for searching and tagging).