Topic: Mega Raichu Implication

The bulk update request #12174 is pending approval.

create implication mega_raichu (91) -> raichu (6808)
create implication mega_raichu_x (65) -> raichu (6808)
create implication mega_raichu_y (71) -> raichu (6808)
create implication mega_raichu_x (65) -> mega_raichu (91)
create implication mega_raichu_y (71) -> mega_raichu (91)

Reason: A mega raichu is still a raichu. Similarly, a mega raichu X or Y is still a mega raichu.

we normally don't make implications from mega forms and base form pokemon, for the sake of searchability. letting people just use one tag to search for one form of pokemon and use ~ and/or to find multiple forms, is more helpful than letting people find multiple forms of pokemon with one tag and forcing those who want just the one to - exclude tags each time.

timeswordsman said:
The bulk update request #12174 is pending approval.

create implication mega_raichu (91) -> raichu (6808)
create implication mega_raichu_x (65) -> raichu (6808)
create implication mega_raichu_y (71) -> raichu (6808)
create implication mega_raichu_x (65) -> mega_raichu (91)
create implication mega_raichu_y (71) -> mega_raichu (91)

Reason: A mega raichu is still a raichu. Similarly, a mega raichu X or Y is still a mega raichu.

This is a perfectly sensible suggestion, but alas, this is e621 where yorkshire_terrier implies domestic_dog but mega_lucario cannot under any circumstances imply lucario despite the same is-a relationship existing. This is also unique to Pokémon specifically, other fictional or mythological creatures don't get the same tagging mechanic (inb4 "what's a default Lucario look like," well what's a default dragon look like?). It's been discussed in the past to no avail, unfortunately, people would rather have the tagging inconsistency for some inconceivable reason.

mklxiv said:
This is a perfectly sensible suggestion, but alas, this is e621 where yorkshire_terrier implies domestic_dog but mega_lucario cannot under any circumstances imply lucario despite the same is-a relationship existing. This is also unique to Pokémon specifically, other fictional or mythological creatures don't get the same tagging mechanic (inb4 "what's a default Lucario look like," well what's a default dragon look like?). It's been discussed in the past to no avail, unfortunately, people would rather have the tagging inconsistency for some inconceivable reason.

megas have diffrent base stats, and diffrent abilities. they're as different from the non-mega pokémon as an evolved pokémon and it's pre-evo.

if we were going to do this it's be better to just have tags for the entire evolutionary line and imply all the pokémon in a line to that.

mklxiv said:
(...) for some inconceivable reason.

A reason was supplied right above you:

siral_exan said:
(...) for the sake of searchability. letting people just use one tag to search for one form of pokemon and use ~ and/or to find multiple forms, is more helpful than letting people find multiple forms of pokemon with one tag and forcing those who want just the one to - exclude tags each time.

Implying to the base form makes it impossible to search for either just the higher tier tag or for explicitly both, you can only either search for the lower tag or a mixture of both (either only higher, or both higher and lower)

Your comparison of a domestic dog implication is also apples to oranges, pokemon tags are practically hybrid species and character tags, they get aspects of both

Not implicting the base form is something character tags get, link (wolf form) doesn't imply link and never will