I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned implicating them before now. Tagging them, yes, but not implicating.

I think implicating them is a bad idea. They are like character names: despite being used with a common entity (the species), they will not always look like the implied. That, and Fakémon includes hybrids of the Pokemon, which can make one look less than the other, for instance a Pikacarp wouldn't look like both a rodent and a fish at the same time. Ergo, just manually tagging species suffices,

That's why I suggested the much broader terms like marine. How often is a goldeen depicted as a non-marine creature?

The hybrid issue occurs between any two vastly different species.

post #887929

Is that a mammal or a fish?

BlueDingo said:
That's why I suggested the much broader terms like marine. How often is a goldeen depicted as a non-marine creature?

Marine + mammal is still a problem. There is a comparative problem with that we don't imply dragon with scalie: furred dragons aren't scalies, but they are still dragons.

Siral_Exan said:
Marine + mammal is still a problem. There is a comparative problem with that we don't imply dragon with scalie: furred dragons aren't scalies, but they are still dragons.

Of course. Dragon covers several creature types. Horsea doesn't.

No implication, because alternate species exist.

post #1084961

Genjar said:
No implication, because alternate species exist.

post #1084961

alternate_species is when a character is depicted as an alternate species. Charizard is not a character.

BlueDingo said:
alternate_species is when a character is depicted as an alternate species. Charizard is not a character.

Did you even take a look at the picture? That's a Human Charizard, Blastoise, and Venusaur. There are no dragons present in that image, but there is a Charizard.

Pokémon are only somewhat species, they're also somewhat characters instead.

Genjar said:
No implication, because alternate species exist.

post #1084961

Agreed on not implicating species for pokémon, even though I was the first on the thread to suggest it. However, I'd say that this image looks more like humans cosplaying as blastoise, charizard, and venusaur.

Furrin_Gok said:
Did you even take a look at the picture? That's a Human Charizard, Blastoise, and Venusaur. There are no dragons present in that image, but there is a Charizard.

Pokémon are only somewhat species, they're also somewhat characters instead.

So according to you, human versions of a species count as alternate_species. Okay.

post #41704

That's a human wolf. There are no canines present in that image, but there is a wolf. I guess the wolf -> canine implication is now invalid because wolves can be depicted as an alternate_species and therefore not always depicted as canines.

Now without creating a double standard, tell me why you disagree with that.

UnusualParadox said:
However, I'd say that this image looks more like humans cosplaying as blastoise, charizard, and venusaur.

That's exactly what I thought when I first saw it. They even have human ears.

BlueDingo said:
So according to you, human versions of a species count as alternate_species. Okay.

post #41704

That's a human wolf. There are no canines present in that image, but there is a wolf. I guess the wolf -> canine implication is now invalid because wolves can be depicted as an alternate_species and therefore not always depicted as canines.

Now without creating a double standard, tell me why you disagree with that.

That's exactly what I thought when I first saw it. They even have human ears.

Reread my post. I already did:

Furrin_Gok said:
Pokémon are only somewhat species, they're also somewhat characters instead.

Genjar said:
I think the first order of business would be to just clean up the current wiki entries. Quite a few of them are simply copied from Bulbapedia. Such as the old entry for Absol: Absol (Japanese: アブソル Absol) is a mammal and a Dark-type Pokémon that resembles a wolf or goat.

Absol: wolf or goat... Can't blame users for tagging them as such if it's in the wiki. I was planning to remove such references, but never got further than letter A. There's always too much other work.

So Genjar, I glanced over the wikis for a handful of pokémon including Absol and I noticed what you're talking about. First one that I checked was Bulbasaur which is literally ripped from the bulbapedia page and it's uglier than sin. If we were going to simply plagiarize from another site, then we might as well kept only the relevant information (like appearance and Japanese name). The bits about levels, evolving, and ecology (within the pokémon universe) seem pointless and irrelevant (as if they're habitat is going to come up much for tagging purposes).

However, I also looked over the Absol wiki page which is significantly shorter and cleaner looking, so good work on that. That said, besides specifying that Absol is a mammal and Dark-type, there's not much else to go on. You did mention that it's often drawn anthrofied which is also useful. I think the pokédex entries should be given a section below the last paragraph and labelled as such. I'm going to add an appearance paragraph below the first line and include it's shiny variation. Feel free to look it over once I've finished it.

Lastly, about the pokédex entry, perhaps we should include the pokédex entry from the games it debuted in for each pokémon, but only from that generation's pokédexes. (This means only two entries will be used at any given time and only for flavor text.)

In my opinion pokémon may be divided mostly into three groups regarding the correlation between their general appearance and the species they are supposedly to be based on:

I) Enough similar to a specific species/group to be tagged as such.

e.g.

• vikavolt → stag beetle.
• ninetales → fox.
• octillery → octopus.

II) Vaguely similar to a specific species/group, in such way it should be tagged as a higher group instead.

e.g.

• typhlosion → mustelid (badger)
• seviper → snake (viper)
• scizor → insect (mantis)

III) Not so similar to any species/group, in such way it shouldn't receive an additional species tagging.

e.g.

• darumaka → ∅
• dunsparce → ∅
• luvdisc → ∅

O16 said:

• luvdisc → ∅

Luvdisc can safely be tagged marine since they are a type of fish. Also, they seem to be based on angelfish, although they don't really have much in common.

I'm too tired to argue other points. I'll do it tomorrow after I sleep.

The current system is better. Every needling suggestion "that couldn't possibly go wrong" is one 95% human 5% pokemon hybrid away from the scrap heap. A human with 1-9 of Ninetale's tails and nothing else would suddenly become a fox even if the tale(s) didn't look particularly fox-like. Why not a different canine?

I don't see why this should be a fox before any other canine. If we ignore the tales or assume it only had one tale, then we wouldn't even tag it Ninetales. With an implication of Ninetails to fox, this would become a fox with insufficient supporting evidence. It is currently tagged fox, as it was originally tagged so three years ago, which should be incorrect.

post #371879

These have the seviper trademark tail-knife but only weakly support the snake tag otherwise.

post #62073 post #224045

The moment the implication produces one wrong tag, the implication starts working counter to expectation and becomes a problem itself, which was deemed unacceptable some years ago.

I'm not sure if this has been suggested before, but wiki pages for specific Pokémon could list the species tags that are commonly associated with it, such as furfrou being a poodle, dog, canine, mammal. This would create a standard for tagging that specific Pokémon without enforcing it in case people draw the Pokemon in a different form, as a humanoid, as a hybrid, etc.

Kemono-Kay said:
I'm not sure if this has been suggested before, but wiki pages for specific Pokémon could list the species tags that are commonly associated with it, such as furfrou being a poodle, dog, canine, mammal. This would create a standard for tagging that specific Pokémon without enforcing it in case people draw the Pokemon in a different form, as a humanoid, as a hybrid, etc.

Anthro characters are still tagged with the species of their feral counterparts.

I already mentioned in the other thread why this would be a bad idea.
But I have to emphasize that overtagging species does not improve searchability.

For example, let's say that all pokemon that resemble equines would get tagged as horse. Then it becomes impossible to search for posts where such pokemon is paired with a normal feral horse.

Granted, there aren't many such pokemon posts. But combined with all the other downsides, the current system is far preferable to the old.

Genjar said:
I already mentioned in the other thread why this would be a bad idea.
But I have to emphasize that overtagging species does not improve searchability.

For example, let's say that all pokemon that resemble equines would get tagged as horse. Then it becomes impossible to search for posts where such pokemon is paired with a normal feral horse.

All of the MLP ponies are tagged with "horse", but we don't seem concerned about normal horses being lumped together with them.

Strikerman said:
All of the MLP ponies are tagged with "horse", but we don't seem concerned about normal horses being lumped together with them.

Quite a few users have been slapped for tagging pegasi and unicorns as horses. If you still see someone doing it, report them. It's in the wiki, but some folks never learn.

Strikerman said:
All of the MLP ponies are tagged with "horse", but we don't seem concerned about normal horses being lumped together with them.

They aren't. Unicorns aren't horses, pegasi aren't horses, winged unicorns aren't horses, bat ponies aren't horses... it isn't made obvious because IDK, but check the records for evidence.

Also, I'm back after passing out at 10pm. Genjar literally said my argument for me, so I feel redundant now.

abadbird said:
The current system is better. Every needling suggestion "that couldn't possibly go wrong" is one 95% human 5% pokemon hybrid away from the scrap heap. A human with 1-9 of Ninetale's tails and nothing else would suddenly become a fox even if the tale(s) didn't look particularly fox-like. Why not a different canine?

I don't see why this should be a fox before any other canine. If we ignore the tales or assume it only had one tale, then we wouldn't even tag it Ninetales. With an implication of Ninetails to fox, this would become a fox with insufficient supporting evidence. It is currently tagged fox, as it was originally tagged so three years ago, which should be incorrect.

post #371879

These have the seviper trademark tail-knife but only weakly support the snake tag otherwise.

post #62073 post #224045

The moment the implication produces one wrong tag, the implication starts working counter to expectation and becomes a problem itself, which was deemed unacceptable some years ago.

I didn't suggested implications or anything absolute. If the creature's appearance get "distorted" in such way it no longer resembles the animal in question, then the additional species tagging shouldn't be made (or at least not as stipulated).

Genjar said:
I already mentioned in the other thread why this would be a bad idea.
But I have to emphasize that overtagging species does not improve searchability.

For example, let's say that all pokemon that resemble equines would get tagged as horse. Then it becomes impossible to search for posts where such pokemon is paired with a normal feral horse.

Granted, there aren't many such pokemon posts. But combined with all the other downsides, the current system is far preferable to the old.

That is why that "above genus rule" was created isn't it? For example: zebstrika shouldn't be tagged as 'zebra', just as 'equine'.

Genjar said:
Quite a few users have been slapped for tagging pegasi and unicorns as horses. If you still see someone doing it, report them. It's in the wiki, but some folks never learn.

I think the issue is more so that people tag pony, which implies horse, but I get your point.

Siral_Exan said:
They aren't. Unicorns aren't horses, pegasi aren't horses, winged unicorns aren't horses, bat ponies aren't horses... it isn't made obvious because IDK, but check the records for evidence.

But earth ponies apparently are. earth_pony I-> pony I-> horse.

Strikerman said:
Anthro characters are still tagged with the species of their feral counterparts.

I was replying to abadbird's post. Let it be clear that when I say humanoid I generally mean something less than anthro, and closer to kemonomimi.

Genjar said:
I already mentioned in the other thread why this would be a bad idea.
But I have to emphasize that overtagging species does not improve searchability.

For example, let's say that all pokemon that resemble equines would get tagged as horse. Then it becomes impossible to search for posts where such pokemon is paired with a normal feral horse.

I'm not sure if this is a reply to what I said, but my suggestion was more general. Genus and species don't necessarily need to be included, I simply picked a pokemon for which those things were very clear as an example. All I'm saying is that it's a good idea to list on the wiki page what certain Pokémon are considered to be.

I may have poorly worded it though, so that's on me.

BlueDingo said:
But earth ponies apparently are. earth_pony I-> pony I-> horse.

'Pony' is just a generic name for horses that have been bred small, and there are various breeds such as shetland pony. Ponies are horses in the same way as lapdogs are dogs.