Implicating serperior → snake

Serperior is a snake Pokémon. Plenty of other Pokémon tags are anchored to species, but this one doesn't seem to be yet, at least not across the board. There seem to be some that are and some that aren't tagged snake.

-1 forum #146245

parasprite said:
-1 forum #146245

That's kind of silly, seeing as there are already a GREAT many Pokémon images that are link-tagged with real-life species.

Afterglow said:
That's kind of silly, seeing as there are already a GREAT many Pokémon images that are link-tagged with real-life species.

I'm not sure what you mean by link-tagged, but AFAIK there's nothing that says you can't tag them as species (I could be wrong about this), just that the implications generally don't work, which is why all of the implications were removed. Cosplay and humanizations are some of the most cited reasons that it doesn't work.

parasprite said:
I'm not sure what you mean by link-tagged, but AFAIK there's nothing that says you can't tag them as species (I could be wrong about this), just that the implications generally don't work, which is why all of the implications were removed. Cosplay and humanizations are some of the most cited reasons that it doesn't work.

Hm, that's true - that bit about cosplay or gijinka or what have you.
But it's largely inconsistent to have half the Serperior tagged snake and half of them not - or half of the Rattata tagged rat and half of them not, etc. :\

It has been decided that we do not compare pokémons with real life species, but a bunch of images have those tagged, it will probably take awhile to clean those tags from the images.

Just_Another_Dragon said:
It has been decided that we do not compare pokémons with real life species, but a bunch of images have those tagged, it will probably take awhile to clean those tags from the images.

I can't help but wonder if certain tags like scalie, dragon, and probably marine should be kept on there, since they are not real-life species, but really just a sort of loose category.

parasprite said:
I can't help but wonder if certain tags like scalie, dragon, and probably marine should be kept on there, since they are not real-life species, but really just a sort of loose category.

Its a convincing point, but i would wait on the answer of a higher being to decide such stuff.

Sometimes tagging things get so confusing.

Afterglow said:
Serperior is a snake Pokémon.

No it isn't. serperior is a pokemon who can look snake-like but technically they are not a snake at all. Some artists can draw them to look like a snake, but other times artists can draw them as a different species entirely. So implicating pokemon to any species other than their own can cause tagging problems. Pokemon are not like any real life species at all.

Afterglow said:
But it's largely inconsistent to have half the Serperior tagged snake and half of them not - or half of the Rattata tagged rat and half of them not, etc. :\

Rattata should never be tagged rat since these are two different species. We don't tag mice with rat either, even though they sometimes look similar but they're still a separate species. The closest we could get is rodent, but that's only appropriate on some of the images where rattata is being drawn very distinctly rodent-like. On other images it will not fit, because the artist decided to draw them in a different style and with different species traits. Some of the rattata images on this site look almost-feline or almost-monkey-like. Just because it has buckteeth and whiskers does not mean it's a rodent. Adding rodent to all of them wouldn't be accurate and it would be a mistag.

So, Denied because we don't implicate pokémon to --> real life species. Pokémon can sometimes looks a little bit similar to a real life species, but more than anything else they look like their own species. Pokémon look first and foremost like pokémon.

-------------------------------

parasprite said:
I can't help but wonder if certain tags like scalie, dragon, and probably marine should be kept on there, since they are not real-life species, but really just a sort of loose category.

Just_Another_Dragon said:
Its a convincing point, but i would wait on the answer of a higher being to decide such stuff.
Sometimes tagging things get so confusing.

It wouldn't work to implicate pokemon to broader species group tags (like scalie or marine etc). However, if that image's depiction of the pokemon looks enough like a broader animal species group then tags like rodent, feline, scalie, marine etc can be added manually. But only when there's a strong and distinct resemblence to that species group. And never to a specific species like rat or horse or fennec etc.

The main reason implicating any pokemon species to a general animal group won't work, is because pokemon tags are duel-purpose tags. They serve as both a semi-character tag and also as a species tag. This is fairly unique and I don't think we have any other species tags which are like this except for pokemon. It means though that when we're tagging the pokemon because it's a crossover, or it's drawn as a different species than normal, or any other instance when we're tagging it because it's a recognizable character instead of tagging the literal species. In those cases, we can't have an implication to canine or scalie automatically adding itself onto a picture where it doesn't belong, because of an implication. Implications aren't flexible enough to adapt to the needs of pokemon. On other characters, the species is separate so we can tag it any combination necessary to describe both the character and the species they're being drawn as in that single image. In a nutshell, the reason we can't implicate pokemon to other species is the same reason we don't implicate character tags to another species. Pokemon tags are both character and species, so we have to balance the limitations of both when it comes to implications involving them.

Well, actually, I guess another fairly big reason is that pokemon also mix multiple different species traits together half of the time, which breaks any consistency in how they're drawn. I've seen feline and lizardlike scrafty's, feline and monkey-like rattata's, bear-like and feline arcanine's, and then there's the fun ones like absol which have been described as "goat-like", "wolf-like" and "feline". Most of the time it just looks like an absol though. So that would make it tough (but not impossible) to implicate any larger animal groups. But the biggest reason is the fact pokemon tags are duel-purpose tags so the implications are just not an option.