It would be really nice if we could get type tagging on Pokemon images.
For example, lets say you want to search for several different fire types or you're the sort who's attracted to fire types in general. Fire-type rating:e would suit you perfectly.

Maybe you do not like seeing water types. Pokemon rating:e -water-type

This is extremely useful tagging for anyone who really has a thing for Pokemon.

Dual types doesn't have to be a headache either. An image contains bulbasaur? poison-type grass-type (Never combine them like grass-posion-type. Thats just too specific. )

This seems kind of silly, to be honest.

Why's that?

Something like this would be practically impossible to standardize. To put this into effect, we would need to create literally hundreds of implications and it's just not worth the effort, considering how little of an improvement it would be.

"Tag what you see, without outside knowledge." These tags would break this rule.

Riversyde said:
"Tag what you see, without outside knowledge." These tags would break this rule.

Tagging pokemon as pokemon already breaks that rule. Tagging 'Mightyena' as anything other than canine and wolf already requires outside knowledge, so at that point you're really just splitting hairs in order to not throw the extra step in there.

RoxFox64 said:
Why's that?

ippiki_ookami said:
Something like this would be practically impossible to standardize. To put this into effect, we would need to create literally hundreds of implications and it's just not worth the effort, considering how little of an improvement it would be.

This is why automation exists.

RoxFox64 said:
Tagging pokemon as pokemon already breaks that rule. Tagging 'Mightyena' as anything other than canine and wolf already requires outside knowledge, so at that point you're really just splitting hairs in order to not throw the extra step in there.

I don't see how it breaks the rule. You see a Mightyena, you tag it as such. Tagging types actually requires research.

RoxFox64 said:
Tagging pokemon as pokemon already breaks that rule. Tagging 'Mightyena' as anything other than canine and wolf already requires outside knowledge, so at that point you're really just splitting hairs in order to not throw the extra step in there.

Actually, the copyright and character tag types are exactly for the kinds of tags represented by "pokemon" and its many critters. Pokemon species are characters in the franchise, just like Sonic is a character in the Sonic the Hedgehog franchise. It would be correct to tag a picture of Sonic as "copy:sonic_(series) char:sonic_the_hedgehog", so why wouldn't you tag a picture of pikachu with "copy:pokemon char:pikachu"?

Now, tagging made-up, imaginary pokemon as "pokemon" would probably be breaking the rule, and I've removed the pokemon tag from several "speculative pokemon" on here, because there was nothing on the image that identifiably belonged under the pokemon copyright.

Also, tagging pokemon types ("grass_type" "fire_type", etc) is getting really borderline, at best, and I think it sits outside of the realm of current tag types. It can't necessarily be seen in the image (such as with all "normal_type" pokemon, or pretty much all "poison type"), it's not a specific character, per se, and it's certainly not an artist or copyright.

At the very least, this would further muddy the waters as to what kinds of outside knowledge can be brought into the booru.

Also, I don't know how many people (if any, besides yourself of course) would actually search for "fire_type" or "fire-type" or "fire_type_(pokemon)". This does, however, start to give a sense for how many aliases would have to be created in an effort to standardize the tagging, as every derivation would create 17 new aliases.

So far, I vote "no".

RoxFox64 said:
This is why automation exists.

Uhh... so you're thinking the admins will write a module that will create all the aliases for a given nomenclature of "fire_pokemon"? Like, a perl script that loops through a file of pokemon types and creates all the aliases for a given regexp, so each time a new nomenclature appears it can be dealt with conveniently?

You must really think this is going to be a popular kind of tag. You know, for a type of tag that nobody has ever felt was necessary before now.

Actually no, originally I was going to write the application that would handle the automation. Initially I was going to write something to go through all 13000 of the pokemon posts and add the tags its self. After having talked things over with some of the site admins adding around 700 implications appeared to be the best course of action.

RoxFox64 said:
After having talked things over with some of the site admins adding around 700 implications appeared to be the best course of action.

At which point we'll have to go through and manually approve each and every one of them. To me, that seems like a pretty daunting task for something that I'm not even 100% in favor of to begin with.

As far as usefulness goes, I feel like this isn't unreasonable. There is even precedent: alicorn, pegacorn, etc. Those are arguably "Pony types." As for outside knowledge: it pushes it, but I feel like it would be ok. I'm not 100% sure of my opinion on that bit, yet, I have to have a few more discussions with myself in my head.

As for implementation: either ditch it because it's a stupid-huge effort, or do what's been done with other massive tagging projects: put it in the Tagging Projects page and see if we can't get other user assistance. If I recall, the Magic User tag types required a lot of finagling about, but there was a lot of community involvement. I don't remember precisely, I was helping SnowWolf sort out a circle of knotted piercing implications.

I'm mostly in favor of this. Yes, there are a lot of types of Pokemon. So do it a little at a time, or get the mods into a group effort to put the aliases together before this kind of tagging goes "live." I think it's pretty great that Rox brought it up here, rather than just going through and adding these tags, to get sorted out later. It'd be a hell of a lot worse if it had caught on before administration noticed, so that there were three "standards" in use to be sorted out after the fact.

So my suggestion, I guess, is for the administration (or community discussion here) to decide on a standard. fire-type or fire_type (my preference) etc. Then, either the admins or a user (Maybe Rox? He/she seems interested enough in the project that they were already willing to write some code for it) puts together the strings of aliases for standardization. You can either then run out 700 implications, OR stick a blurb in the news about it and let the pokeporn fans run loose on it. Yes, there will be mistags. There will always be mistags. Don't let that discourage you. There are more good taggers than bad, any mistagged types will get sorted out eventually.

I am completely and utterly against it.

I don't see any point to it at all, no matter how many perspectives I look at it from or reasons I try to think of. All it would do is promote tag clutter. Even pokemon of similiar types are so radically different in appearance, and the whole type-tagging is so vague, that type-tags would just be too situational for effective use. We'd have to bring in MORE tags just to smooth things out, like water-on-fire-type or mixed-type and blah blah--and when you need to add ADDITIONAL tags to make a new category of tagging work, it's just not worth it, in my opinion.

It's unnecessary, ineffective, a lot of work, and actually a bit annoying, with little to no payoff for the headache. Is there even a reason this would have the slightest chance of passing?

I'm not entirely against it, but...

There are almost 14,000 Pokémon images...

containing 650 different Pokémon species...

divided into 17 types of Pokémon, not including dual types.

I don't even want to begin trying to sort all of that crap out. So I say don't bother with trying to tag types here; leave it to other sites/databases that are more specialized in Pokémon.

If you really just want to see Pokémon of a particular type on e621, just find a listing of Pokémon by type on some other site, pick out the ones you want, then search them by name back here.

ExplosiveBlaziken said:
This seems kind of silly, to be honest.

ippiki_ookami said:
Something like this would be practically impossible to standardize. To put this into effect, we would need to create literally hundreds of implications and it's just not worth the effort, considering how little of an improvement it would be.

what say you about pokemon made into types differing rom the original types? for example: Vaporeon is a water type, however, add some cool markings and color it a different color and, while still a vaporeon, it might now be an electric/fire type pokemon. or or a better example: This is an official pokemon card of dragonite http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Dark_Dragonite_%28EX_Team_Rocket_Returns_15%29 Dragonite is a dragon/flying type, however, according to this card, dragonite is a dark type. as it stands, lets assume someone doesn't play the video games or watch the show, but they collect the cards. to them, all poison types are grass types, dragon and flying types are normal, and ghost types are psychic types. because of these factors, I say no.

Absolutely not, never. No types other than those already defined by GameFreak. Card types apply to that card, and are not the same as pokemon types.
Card types in no way reflect pokemon types.

RoxFox64 said:
Absolutely not, never. No types other than those already defined by GameFreak. Card types apply to that card, and are not the same as pokemon types.
Card types in no way reflect pokemon types.

Wait, but if someone only plays the card game and not the gameboy games, will they be able to appreciate the difference?

ikdind said:
Wait, but if someone only plays the card game and not the gameboy games, will they be able to appreciate the difference?

Isn't that almost exactly what I said in different words?

outside of that being what I said, gamefreak woks with wizards (the company that makes the cards) to such a degree that they even made a game together (pokemon trading card game for gameboy) so by all definitions, all the types on the cards apply to pokemon just as well as the games and show. in the end of the day, it's all still pokemon. and to be fair, if we were only going by gamefreak, the show wouldn't apply either, nor would the manga or any other comic series, even if it's by Satoshi Tajiri himself, as the tv show is.

cookiekangaroo said:
Isn't that almost exactly what I said in different words?

I didn't entirely miss the subtext, but Rox's reply was all "don't matter about no card game or other official sources", so I was specifically calling it out.

It's a good idea to mull over, hypothetically, speaking, but I think it's a bit overkill. (For the record, there are a number of other tags that I also think are overkill also, such as grey.

ikdind said:
I didn't entirely miss the subtext, but Rox's reply was all "don't matter about no card game or other official sources", so I was specifically calling it out.

Okay once again, pokemon card types apply specifically to that /card/ and not to the pokemon on the card. I'm fairly certain that a player of the TCG knows that Pikachu is an [Electric] type and not a [Water] type, even if there is a water type pikachu card.

ikdind said:
Uhh... so you're thinking the admins will write a module that will create all the aliases for a given nomenclature of "fire_pokemon"? Like, a perl script that loops through a file of pokemon types and creates all the aliases for a given regexp, so each time a new nomenclature appears it can be dealt with conveniently?

You must really think this is going to be a popular kind of tag. You know, for a type of tag that nobody has ever felt was necessary before now.

I have no clue what most of the things you said are.

ikdind said:
Uhh... so you're thinking the admins will write a module that will create all the aliases for a given nomenclature of "fire_pokemon"? Like, a perl script that loops through a file of pokemon types and creates all the aliases for a given regexp, so each time a new nomenclature appears it can be dealt with conveniently?

You must really think this is going to be a popular kind of tag. You know, for a type of tag that nobody has ever felt was necessary before now.

http://i.imgur.com/JLyWL.jpg