The bulk update request #887 has been rejected.

Reason: In favor of removing the accented E.

The 223 aliases can immediately be transferred over, but some implications may need to alias to an unaccented version of themselves before the implication gets recreated.

EDIT: The bulk update request #887 (forum #309651) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

Something that came up: five years ago the types got aliased to pokémon, but is that really for the best in the current day? My argument back then was things like Delta Pokemon, but if we can keep our regional forms separate from our normal, I'm sure we can do so with our fanon-forms as well. We also have the lore category now, which types can fit under. Should we bring those back?

furrin_gok said:
Something that came up: five years ago the types got aliased to pokémon, but is that really for the best in the current day? My argument back then was things like Delta Pokemon, but if we can keep our regional forms separate from our normal, I'm sure we can do so with our fanon-forms as well. We also have the lore category now, which types can fit under. Should we bring those back?

I've been arguing for the regional form and other tags to be similarly nuked for ages now. They serve no purpose, and can even create controversy where there was none (e.g. topic #28018).

To take just one example, why do we even have a fossil_pokémon tag? Who asked for that?

furrin_gok said:
Something that came up: five years ago the types got aliased to pokémon, but is that really for the best in the current day? My argument back then was things like Delta Pokemon, but if we can keep our regional forms separate from our normal, I'm sure we can do so with our fanon-forms as well. We also have the lore category now, which types can fit under. Should we bring those back?

The way I see it, regional forms are similar to separate breeds. There are clear visual differences between an alolan_ninetales and normal ninetales, just as there are between a red fox and arctic fox. Fanon forms I see more like hybrids; we don't tag cheefox or dragonbat, even when there's clearly defined traits to identify them separate from normal cheetahs, foxes, dragons, or bats. In contrast, we do tag original fakemon species like faunazon or jugglhare, which act more like their own species similar to felkin or sergal.

wat8548 said:
I've been arguing for the regional form and other tags to be similarly nuked for ages now. They serve no purpose, and can even create controversy where there was none (e.g. topic #28018).

To take just one example, why do we even have a fossil_pokémon tag? Who asked for that?

The type tags can be used to find a concept, when you don't know if any such image exists. Say you wanted to find a grass pokemon that was drawn in a more reptilian style, you'd have to individually check through each and every pokemon's tag from the grass category to try and find anything; if you could search something like grass_pokemon scalie you could find something like post #1682014, as well as notice just how many people falsely tag images as scalie when there's no scales present (good for cleaning projects).

In Fossil's case, a lot of these pokemon represent dinosaurs, but genus and above is frequently not tagged, just species--and pokemon don't get real world species tags. It's a good tag to find dinosaur-type pokemon (especially for cleanup), as well as concepts like what modern evolution could have done for the pokemon, or what they might look like in a more natural, not-revived state (especially true for gen 8's fossils, which you only see half of)

watsit said:
The way I see it, regional forms are similar to separate breeds. There are clear visual differences between an alolan_ninetales and normal ninetales, just as there are between a red fox and arctic fox. Fanon forms I see more like hybrids; we don't tag cheefox or dragonbat, even when there's clearly defined traits to identify them separate from normal cheetahs, foxes, dragons, or bats. In contrast, we do tag original fakemon species like faunazon or jugglhare, which act more like their own species similar to felkin or sergal.

Hybrids I agree with you on--a lucario braixen hybrid will be tagged as so, which if the types are reintroduced, images like post #1047273 would have fire, steel, and fighting all on a solo image. Images like post #1449460 includes "alternate type" pokemon, but that's a non-canon inclusion which would still get the Psychic and Fairy types for Julie, and not Fire.

furrin_gok said:
The type tags can be used to find a concept, when you don't know if any such image exists.

To a point. A pokemon's type is largely a game mechanics thing. Pokemon have the types they do for balancing purposes since each type is strong or weak against other types. For instance, the reason Charizard isn't a Dragon-type is because the Dragon-type was treated as a pseudo-legendary in the early gens since they had few weaknesses, and giving that type to a starter (or its final evo form) would be too over-powered, even though he has clear design influences of a dragon. How many people would go around manually tagging charizard as a dragon_pokemon if that was a valid tag?

At the same time, a pokemon's type can change between gens. Most notably, in Gen 6 when the Fairy-type was introduced, a number of pokemon had their Normal typing replaced with Fairy (so they were no longer a normal_pokemon, where they were previously). There's nothing stopping Game Freak from changing charizard from fire/flying to fire/dragon in a future game if they feel it would balance better.

This would also wreak havoc on posts where people tag the base form on mega forms, since certain pokemon do change/gain/lose types when mega-evolving, requiring extra cleanup which not everyone will know to do.

At best, I could only see it working if the site got a new 'implication-only tag' system, where certain tags can't be added manually and will only appear due to being implicated by another tag. Such tags could be automatically refreshed (removed as needed) when other tags change without worrying about if they were manually added for some purpose. But I have no idea how practical such a feature would be.

@Furrin_Gok Unicode in aliased terms might be fine. It is just the terms that aren't aliased that contain unicode are the problem. Also there is a chance that since the tags once existed, having them not associated with any other tag will allow them to still be populated.

I wouldn't worry too much about what someone might do, and I would argue the benefit outweighs any minor nuisances regarding edge cases. The tags are meant to be convenient after all and it is very inconvenient to not have the elements grouped together. There are simply too many species to search for to not have any way to search for large groups of them. We can't even search by generation.

e621 has been smart to keep major regional / mega forms as separate, as the types change for these forms. Different forms can imply different types without affecting the other forms. For the pokemon that changed type, I found it intuitive to keep all older types, and slap on newer types. At least the Gen 6 change seemed to be handled effectively concerning this.

As for hybrids, hybrids have never been very compatible with the search system. Just have to accept that there will be quirks about them that make searching inaccurate.

As for cleanup, I will graciously lend a hand if this ever becomes a big problem. Having 1000 species tags that are largely unorganized is a bigger problem than having to cleanup manual tagging.

I'm glad that someone finally had the patience to tackle this issue. Thank you, @Furrin_Gok!

Useful tip: if you ever need to write a similar BUR again, bitWolfy's Alias Reverser tool is quite useful.

Just a minor problem:

remove implication spiky-eared-pichu -> pokémon # missing`

If you don't remove this line before the BUR is approved, it might fail due to the missing relationship error.

Y'all, the @username is completely unnecessary. Just username itself will bring it up when a user checks for themselves in the forums.

thevileone said:
Unicode in aliased terms might be fine. It is just the terms that aren't aliased that contain unicode are the problem. Also there is a chance that since the tags once existed, having them not associated with any other tag will allow them to still be populated.

I wouldn't worry too much about what someone might do, and I would argue the benefit outweighs any minor nuisances regarding edge cases. The tags are meant to be convenient after all and it is very inconvenient to not have the elements grouped together. There are simply too many species to search for to not have any way to search for large groups of them. We can't even search by generation.

e621 has been smart to keep major regional / mega forms as separate, as the types change for these forms. Different forms can imply different types without affecting the other forms. For the pokemon that changed type, I found it intuitive to keep all older types, and slap on newer types. At least the Gen 6 change seemed to be handled effectively concerning this.

As for hybrids, hybrids have never been very compatible with the search system. Just have to accept that there will be quirks about them that make searching inaccurate.

As for cleanup, I will graciously lend a hand if this ever becomes a big problem. Having 1000 species tags that are largely unorganized is a bigger problem than having to cleanup manual tagging.

Existing unicode tags are working, for now, but that doesn't mean we don't need to get rid of them at some point.

gattonero2001 said:
I'm glad that someone finally had the patience to tackle this issue. Thank you, @Furrin_Gok!

Useful tip: if you ever need to write a similar BUR again, bitWolfy's Alias Reverser tool is quite useful.

Just a minor problem:

remove implication spiky-eared-pichu -> pokémon # missing`

If you don't remove this line before the BUR is approved, it might fail due to the missing relationship error.

Oops, Spiky-eared_pichu only has one dash, I accidentally replaced the underscore with a second dash. Fixed that, so it should be fine now.

furrin_gok said:
Existing unicode tags are working, for now, but that doesn't mean we don't need to get rid of them at some point.

Depends on what you mean by "working". I was unable to alias away baby_pokémon because it wouldn't accept the pokémon tag as a target, even though it's a pre-existing tag. Not to mention the pokémon_champion implication mess.

This kind of needs to be handled soon. The recent Pokemon Presents showed off new Pokemon forms, evolutions, and characters for Pokemon Legends Arceus (characters, pokemon) that need implications, and there is fanart being made of them, but it won't let me make a BUR because it won't accept implications to the letter é, and the plain e variants are currently aliased and can't be an implication target.

imply hisuian_growlithe -> regional_form_(pokemon)
imply hisuian_growlithe -> pokemon_(species)
imply hisuian_braviary -> regional_form_(pokémon)
imply hisuian_braviary -> pokemon_(species)
imply wyrdeer -> pokemon_(species)
imply basculegion -> pokemon_(species)
imply akari_(pokemon) -> pokemon
imply rei_(pokemon) -> pokemon
imply professor_laventon -> pokemon_professor
imply commander_kamado -> pokemon
imply captain_cyllene -> pokemon

Hey sorry if this might seem off topic but does anyone know why the pokemorph tag is not implicated to the anthrofied tag?

foolysh said:
Hey sorry if this might seem off topic but does anyone know why the pokemorph tag is not implicated to the anthrofied tag?

I may be wrong, but.

I would say that not every pokemorph case would result in an anthro as per e621's anthro definition.
Some of them would fall into humanoid instead.

foolysh said:
Hey sorry if this might seem off topic but does anyone know why the pokemorph tag is not implicated to the anthrofied tag?

sieghelm_lockayer said:
I may be wrong, but.

I would say that not every pokemorph case would result in an anthro as per e621's anthro definition.
Some of them would fall into humanoid instead.

Examples

The most prominent example would be Gardevoir:
post #2880418

There's also this post that I would tag as humanoid,
but it seems someone tagged as anthro: 🤔
post #2870495

Do we need a pokemorph tag? anthrofied and humanoidized alraedy exist.

strikerman said:
Do we need a pokemorph tag? anthrofied and humanoidized alraedy exist.

Well, there was this thread: topic #28167

sieghelm_lockayer said:
I may be wrong, but.

I would say that not every pokemorph case would result in an anthro as per e621's anthro definition.
Some of them would fall into humanoid instead.

Examples

The most prominent example would be Gardevoir:
post #2880418

There's also this post that I would tag as humanoid,
but it seems someone tagged as anthro: 🤔
post #2870495

I think, that the second example does warrant the anthro tag since since she still has an animal nose, fur, eyes, etc. I always assumed that humanoid and by extension humanoidized meant basicaly kemonomimi, where the only animal characteristics that they have are extra features like wings, tails, animal ears, antennae, or eyes. But everything else about their appearance is something that could reasonably expected for a normal human. No fur/scales/feathers, no muzzle/beak, no extra appendages, no non-plantigrade/bipedal legs.

Moreover, Gardevoir and by extension any Pokémon who normally have very anthropomorphic appearances should not receive the tag in general since the idea of being a Pokemorph is being a Pokémon with a canon non anthropomorphic appearance and being depicted with an anthropomorphic appearance by an artist. Like wat8548's profile picture. Electrike and Poochyena are not anthropomorphic in the games so in the context of the picture they would be considered pokemorphs

watsit said:
To a point. A pokemon's type is largely a game mechanics thing. Pokemon have the types they do for balancing purposes since each type is strong or weak against other types. For instance, the reason Charizard isn't a Dragon-type is because the Dragon-type was treated as a pseudo-legendary in the early gens since they had few weaknesses, and giving that type to a starter (or its final evo form) would be too over-powered, even though he has clear design influences of a dragon. How many people would go around manually tagging charizard as a dragon_pokemon if that was a valid tag?

Since it was mentioned, I’ve seen some conflicts regarding the dragon tag on Pokémon images. People tend to tag flygon as dragon because it’s a dragon type, but it really doesn’t look anything like a dragon. It looks like a dragonfly, or at least some kind of flying insect. This doesn’t work very well if you’re searching for art of actual dragons and you get Flygon. Having a dragon_pokemon tag might help alleviate this.

scaliespe said:
Since it was mentioned, I’ve seen some conflicts regarding the dragon tag on Pokémon images. People tend to tag flygon as dragon because it’s a dragon type, but it really doesn’t look anything like a dragon. It looks like a dragonfly, or at least some kind of flying insect. This doesn’t work very well if you’re searching for art of actual dragons and you get Flygon. Having a dragon_pokemon tag might help alleviate this.

I once again would like to bring up the type tags: If we could tag pokemon types, it would allow people to see that something "relevant" to that sort of thing is tagged already, and reduce accidental dragon taggings.

scaliespe said:
Since it was mentioned, I’ve seen some conflicts regarding the dragon tag on Pokémon images. People tend to tag flygon as dragon because it’s a dragon type, but it really doesn’t look anything like a dragon. It looks like a dragonfly, or at least some kind of flying insect. This doesn’t work very well if you’re searching for art of actual dragons and you get Flygon. Having a dragon_pokemon tag might help alleviate this.

You're already not supposed to tag a species that a Pokémon "looks like", yet people continue to do it. The only solution to this problem is the admins handing out a bunch of records, since other methods of communication rarely get through.

furrin_gok said:
I once again would like to bring up the type tags: If we could tag pokemon types, it would allow people to see that something "relevant" to that sort of thing is tagged already, and reduce accidental dragon taggings.

Most Pokémon that share a type are not at all "relevant" to each other. (Dragon is arguably the one exception, but that's because it's the stupidest type.) I also doubt that anyone would think to type dragon_type_pokemon instead of continuing their usual habit of tagging non-official species names. There is just as big a problem with people tagging lucario as canine (or even jackal), but I don't see you proposing fighting_type_pokemon as a solution to that one.

wat8548 said:
You're already not supposed to tag a species that a Pokémon "looks like", yet people continue to do it. The only solution to this problem is the admins handing out a bunch of records, since other methods of communication rarely get through.

Well, I think there’s a bit of an issue with this, too. Like, Arbok is very obviously a snake, and Charizard is very obviously a dragon. If someone is looking for art of dragons and snakes, these are relevant results, regardless of the fact that they’re Pokémon. The issue is that Flygon is really not a relevant result, but people always tag it as a dragon regardless.

I bring this up for the same purpose that type tags might’ve had - to separate the huge number of Pokémon species so you can find certain kinds of Pokémon without having to search for each individual species. There’s too many of them to do that. So if you want Pokémon that look like dragons? Well, besides Flygon and a few others, a dragon type tag would be useful for that. But I’d agree that many of the others, like fighting type, would be pretty useless since they don’t have much in common visually. Hence why I think it might be useful to also tag Pokémon with whatever species they’re based on, if there obviously is one, as in the case of Arbok. Things like Lugia would just get no other species tags because they don’t closely resemble anything. In fact, I’d really like to have Arbok imply snake and Charizard imply dragon.

wat8548 said:
You're already not supposed to tag a species that a Pokémon "looks like", yet people continue to do it.

You're not supposed to tag the specific species a pokemon is based on, but can be tagged as a particular type of animal given its visible features, as it says in the wiki.

Moreover, while Pokémon species may also be tagged with certain physical traits/classes, they should not also be tagged with the specific species of animal they are based on. So for example, the Pokémon Blazikenpost #2365716, could be tagged with Avian since it has bird-like features such as talons, feathers, and a beak; but it should never also be tagged with Chicken.

Similarly, Lucario can be tagged canine since it has the features of one, but not jackal that its based on, and Charizard can be tagged dragon since it has the features of one, but not fire_salamander_(salamander) that its based on.

The problem with tagging pokemon types is as I said before: it's largely arbitrary and influenced by game balance, and can and does change between games. It completely violates TWYS, and aside from helping pokenerds who already know or want to know what types a pokemon is currently classified as, it doesn't help you find an image with particular visual elements. And it makes a mess when people inevitably mistag pokemon species (how many times does alolan_vulpix (ice type) also get tagged vulpix (fire type)? or mega_charizard_x (fire/dragon) also being tagged charizard (fire/flying)? as it is, I've been having a heck of a time the past couple of days clearing out the growlithe tag on posts with a hisuian_growlithe). The wiki would be an appropriate place for type info, not the tags.

Still waiting on this, huh. We've got some new Hisui pokemon coming up, including at least a couple of regional variants, but implications can't go through while regional_variant_(pokémon) still has that unicode E.

watsit said:
You're not supposed to tag the specific species a pokemon is based on, but can be tagged as a particular type of animal given its visible features, as it says in the wiki.
Similarly, Lucario can be tagged canine since it has the features of one, but not jackal that its based on, and Charizard can be tagged dragon since it has the features of one, but not fire_salamander_(salamander) that its based on.

The problem with tagging pokemon types is as I said before: it's largely arbitrary and influenced by game balance, and can and does change between games. It completely violates TWYS, and aside from helping pokenerds who already know or want to know what types a pokemon is currently classified as, it doesn't help you find an image with particular visual elements. And it makes a mess when people inevitably mistag pokemon species (how many times does alolan_vulpix (ice type) also get tagged vulpix (fire type)? or mega_charizard_x (fire/dragon) also being tagged charizard (fire/flying)? as it is, I've been having a heck of a time the past couple of days clearing out the growlithe tag on posts with a hisuian_growlithe). The wiki would be an appropriate place for type info, not the tags.

That's just it. The problem is already there. Reintroducing pokemon types won't create some new problem, it'll just have the same problem that persists on all these other tags, including the regional forms--something that is unquestionably relevant.

I'd also like this to get approved so that the baby_pokémon tag can finally be killed for good. Currently it has 5 posts, all of which were added manually.

furrin_gok said:
That's just it. The problem is already there.

Is it? Blaziken has avian features, so you tag avian with it. Charizard has draconic features, so you tag dragon with it. This is TWYS, not some changeable arbitrary type determined by current gen game mechanics. I don't see the problem. Someone mistagging a post with Vulpix when they meant Alolan Vulpix won't erroneously also put the fire tag on the post. It's easy to remove charizard when the post should just be tagged mega_charizard_x, and warn the user about it, but how many people know to also remove the flying_type_pokemon tag when cleaning them?

Not to mention the mess type tags would make with hybrids. Is someone's hybrid Lapras/Torterra OC really water+ice+grass+ground type? Or more simply, how about someone's mono-species pokemon OC that they say has different typing from standard. I'd be hard-pressed to call certain highly stylized and anthrofied pokemon as their types, like this being a flying type or this being rock type. Then there's Arceus, which if I recall correctly, lore-wise is technically any and all types at will.

watsit said:
Is it? Blaziken has avian features, so you tag avian with it. Charizard has draconic features, so you tag dragon with it. This is TWYS, not some changeable arbitrary type determined by current gen game mechanics. I don't see the problem.

post #2868050 post #344902
When they have the features, it fits, but they don't always have the features. The problem is people adding those tags when the features aren't present, just because they normally are.

Someone mistagging a post with Vulpix when they meant Alolan Vulpix won't erroneously also put the fire tag on the post. It's easy to remove charizard when the post should just be tagged mega_charizard_x, and warn the user about it, but how many people know to also remove the flying_type_pokemon tag when cleaning them?

You seem to believe that it will be such a small number, but that's a belief shared among a lot of different tags, which wind up working out. Worst case, we can always alias them away at a later date.

Not to mention the mess type tags would make with hybrids. Is someone's hybrid Lapras/Torterra OC really water+ice+grass+ground type? Or more simply, how about someone's mono-species pokemon OC that they say has different typing from standard. I'd be hard-pressed to call certain highly stylized and anthrofied pokemon as their types, like this being a flying type or this being rock type. Then there's Arceus, which if I recall correctly, lore-wise is technically any and all types at will.

Yes, alternate type OCs would pose a problem. Julie Delacroix is a specific recurring character who has a different type than normal. The workaround here would be to not implicate types and instead tag them manually. Missing instances is better than false instances, and people wrongly adding them would be on par with people tagging colored_scales and related tags when you can't fully tell which type of body material it is.

furrin_gok said:
The workaround here would be to not implicate types and instead tag them manually. Missing instances is better than false instances, and people wrongly adding them would be on par with people tagging colored_scales and related tags when you can't fully tell which type of body material it is.

Oh boy, I can already picture the onslaught of Dark-type Luxrays and Water-type Goodras.

furrin_gok said:
When they have the features, it fits, but they don't always have the features. The problem is people adding those tags when the features aren't present, just because they normally are.

Species in general are handled somewhat loosely. Characters without feline features are still tagged as such as long as it can be it.

furrin_gok said:
The workaround here would be to not implicate types and instead tag them manually. Missing instances is better than false instances, and people wrongly adding them would be on par with people tagging colored_scales and related tags when you can't fully tell which type of body material it is.

So they'll be woefully undertagged. With many posts lacking the tag that should have them, and the tags not referring to a visual element of the image, I don't see the point in having a tag for them. How useful would flying_wyvern or fanged_wyvern be if they weren't implicated by Monster Hunter species, and most people didn't know which applied? Not that they're terribly useful now, but that's a discussion for elsewhere.

wat8548 said:
Oh boy, I can already picture the onslaught of Dark-type Luxrays and Water-type Goodras.

Or any number of other pokemon that fans widely believe are some type, but actually aren't when you look them up ("Not a water type. " - Game Freak), or are considered an "honorary member" of that type, "would obviously be that type if pokemon could have more than two types", or "aren't that type just because of game mechanics/balancing".

A couple more new pokemon have been revealed, which can't get their é-based implications.

imply hisuian_zorua -> regional_form_(pokemon)
imply hisuian_zorua -> pokemon_(species)
imply hisuian_zoroark -> regional_form_(pokémon)
imply hisuian_zoroark -> pokemon_(species)

I noticed also that hisuian_braviary and hisuian_growlithe somehow got implicated to pokémon_(species), but not regional_form_(pokémon).

watsit said:
A couple more new pokemon have been revealed, which can't get their é-based implications.

imply hisuian_zorua -> regional_form_(pokemon)
imply hisuian_zorua -> pokemon_(species)
imply hisuian_zoroark -> regional_form_(pokémon)
imply hisuian_zoroark -> pokemon_(species)

I noticed also that hisuian_braviary and hisuian_growlithe somehow got implicated to pokémon_(species), but not regional_form_(pokémon).

Oh, grand, there's a giant list of new things to add. Guess I'll be working on that now.

The bulk update request #887 (forum #309651) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.