Topic: rath_wyvern implication cleanup

The tag implication #66788 rath_wyvern -> flying_wyvern has been rejected.

Reason: I've come across a post with a rathian not tagged as a flying wyvern, although properly tagged as a rath wyvern. I went to dig a little deeper, and it seems that rath_wyvern does not in fact imply flying_wyvern, even though the tag (encompassing rathian and rathalos) is indeed only used for flying wyverns.

HOWEVER, rathalos does imply it properly. I believe I heard something about recursive implications not supposed to happen, so if this should instead be done through a BUR that also removes the direction implication from rathalos to flying_wyvern, I can correct this (but there's a few more recursive implications in the more granular tags for these as well)

EDIT: The tag implication rath_wyvern -> flying_wyvern (forum #441452) has been rejected by @Bugabond.

The tag implication rath_wyvern -> flying_wyvern (forum #441452) has been rejected by @Bugabond.

The bulk update request #10769 has been rejected.

create implication rath_wyvern (1550) -> flying_wyvern (6019)
remove implication rathalos (889) -> flying_wyvern (6019)
remove implication rathian (778) -> monster_hunter (20148)
remove implication azure_rathalos (57) -> rath_wyvern (1550)
remove implication silver_rathalos (33) -> rath_wyvern (1550)
remove implication pink_rathian (103) -> rath_wyvern (1550)
remove implication gold_rathian (44) -> rath_wyvern (1550)

Reason: I wasn't happy with the mess the above would still leave in implication history. The implications leading back and forth from rathian and rathalos are a spaghetti.

For the record, only the first change from this BUR has any functionality. The others are removing implications that, with the first change approved, would be redundant.

EDIT: The bulk update request #10769 (forum #443832) has been rejected by @Bugabond.

The bulk update request #10769 (forum #443832) has been rejected by @Bugabond.

The bulk update request #12098 is pending approval.

create implication rathian (778) -> flying_wyvern (6019)
create implication guardian_rathalos (2) -> rath_wyvern (1550)
remove implication rathian (778) -> monster_hunter (20148)
remove implication azure_rathalos (57) -> rathalos (889)
remove implication silver_rathalos (33) -> rathalos (889)
remove implication pink_rathian (103) -> rathian (778)
remove implication gold_rathian (44) -> rathian (778)

Reason: Yet another attempt at cleaning this up

In the MH Wilds BUR it was pointed out to me that specific form variations shouldn't implicate their default counterparts. I have also been informed that the closest analogue to Monster Hunter's variations - Pokemon forms - indeed do not do this.

As such:
1. I remove implications from the alternate forms of Rathian and Rathalos that add the default form tag
2. I add the implication of flying wyvern for those alternate forms, which otherwise would be lost with the above being true (needs to be done in a followup, currently errors)
3. I add the implication of flying wyvern for the default rathian form, and remove the redundant monster hunter implication
4. I add the implication of rath wyvern for guardian rathalos, since it's the newest addition to the family and wasn't attached there yet

Things to note:
- I chose not to implicate flying wyvern from rath wyvern, since now that guardian rathalos exists, with it exists an exception - that specific variation is NOT a flying wyvern by class

Concept that I really would like to hear feedback on:
- Including tags for separate variation forms, similar to tags like alolan form, shiny pokemon, or mega pokemon to easily group the different variations together (so it would be subspecies_(mh), variant_(mh), rare_species_(mh), deviant_(mh)). As it stands, the variations are treated in a very random manner. Some are attached like raths here, some are aliased away to the default form, some are just ignored altogether. I would really like to unify the way they're treated, but I am unsure whether this treatment that pokemon forms got was an exception from some rule, or whether its an acceptable unification system.

Needed followup:

implicate azure_rathalos -> flying_wyvern
implicate silver_rathalos -> flying_wyvern
implicate pink_rathian -> flying_wyvern
implicate gold_rathian -> flying_wyvern

bugabond said:
create implication rathian (773) -> flying_wyvern (5969)
create implication guardian_rathalos (2) -> rath_wyvern (1541)
remove implication rathian (773) -> monster_hunter (19977)

I absolutely agree with those.

About guardian variantion of monsters: I think they should be treated the same as subspecies on this side. We don't know how exactly the ancient civilation of MH created guardians and how they are classified in the world of MH, but, especially according to TWYS, they are basically just a subspecies with a special background.

bugabond said:
Concept that I really would like to hear feedback on:
- Including tags for separate variation forms, similar to tags like alolan form, shiny pokemon, or mega pokemon to easily group the different variations together (so it would be subspecies_(mh), variant_(mh), rare_species_(mh), deviant_(mh)).

The problem I see with this approach:

Let's say I want to search for azure_rathalos. With the concept you proposed, I would type rathalos subspecies_(mh). Now, all correct posts would be found, but every posts that contains a rathalos with any other subspecies would show up too, e.g:

post #4658981 post #846767 post #4952951

So imo, you just loose precision whithout gaining much in return.

About subspecies in general, here's a comment I wrote in topic #60243:

Yeah, that's the exact same conclusion I came to.
I think using a new tag to group each species would be the best option. This way, the normal variant still has the tag people are used to, only the subspecies will get mistagged every now and then.
It should be the species name with a suffix (e.g. nargacuga_(group) ), and since the grouping tag will always have more or equal the number of posts the base tag has, this way it will show up higher than the base tag in the results the autocomplete returns when typing in the name.

I think we really need to unify the handling of subspecies. I created the BUR topic #60244 for the same reasons.

naughtycugaowo said:
Let's say I want to search for azure_rathalos. With the concept you proposed, I would type rathalos subspecies_(mh).

No, not at all

Searching rathalos subspecies_(mh) should give you posts where there's both a regular rathalos and any subspecies at all. Similar to how searching vulpix alolan_form will give you posts with both a regular vulpix, and any alolan form at all.

If you were to search for azure rathalos, you'd type azure_rathalos.

Pokemon set the precedent here, and it's working well enough for that purpose.

bugabond said:
No, not at all

Searching rathalos subspecies_(mh) should give you posts where there's both a regular rathalos and any subspecies at all. Similar to how searching vulpix alolan_form will give you posts with both a regular vulpix, and any alolan form at all.

If you were to search for azure rathalos, you'd type azure_rathalos.

So you don't want to replace the specific tags for each subspecies, but only add the tags for subspecies_(mh) etc?
If that's the case, even with those new tags I still think we need one overarching tag for every kind of rathalos. Otherwise, if I wanted to search for all images that contain any form of Rathalos, I would need to know the name of each subspecies beforehand, and then search like this every time: ~rathalos ~azure_rathalos ~silver_rathalos ~dreadking_rathalos

naughtycugaowo said:
So you don't want to replace the specific tags for each subspecies, but only add the tags for subspecies_(mh) etc?
If that's the case, even with those new tags I still think we need one overarching tag for every kind of rathalos. Otherwise, if I wanted to search for all images that contain any form of Rathalos, I would need to know the name of each subspecies beforehand, and then search like this every time: ~rathalos ~azure_rathalos ~silver_rathalos ~dreadking_rathalos

I don't necessarily disagree, but I don't see any way to make such a tag with it sounding natural and being naturally searched by people. This is a weird issue, and I don't think there's a good resolution.

naughtycugaowo said:
I think using a new tag to group each species would be the best option. This way, the normal variant still has the tag people are used to, only the subspecies will get mistagged every now and then.
It should be the species name with a suffix (e.g. nargacuga_(group) ), and since the grouping tag will always have more or equal the number of posts the base tag has, this way it will show up higher than the base tag in the results the autocomplete returns when typing in the name.

What do you think about this?

naughtycugaowo said:
What do you think about this?

Runs into the problem of not being naturally searched by people, but everything you said in the message sounds like solid logic otherwise. I'm honestly not really sold on either idea, I just want to get this mess sorted in one way or another.

bugabond said:
I'm honestly not really sold on either idea, I just want to get this mess sorted in one way or another.

Yeah, I'm not 100% happy about my solution either. But the main problem is, that we need two separate tags for the "base" species, and the "group", while both are used under the same name by everyone. I believe making a new tag for the base variant is less intuive than creating a new tag for the whole group, especially if it's readable in the tag name that the tag is supposed to be a more "technical" one.
So, I don't see any better solution than to create a new grouping tag.
I'd just really like to know if there's any willingness on this site to change the current status quo