When I tag Pokemon, I do a bit of research to see which real-life animal, if any, it tries to imitate and tag that animal too. Also, when I see different evolutions which, if they were furries or animals, would be tagged as an age difference. And, many-to-most of these cross-evolutional pairings seem obviously to be imitating the maturity difference in caricaturizing them, in all fairness.

But I see barely anyone tagging Pokemon in either way, despite the "tag-what-you-see" rule of thumb. And, sometimes, I see these tags being undone. I'm aware that Pokemon age technically can't be determined just by the evolution, as evolutions can be skipped. I am also aware that real-life animals also exist in the Pokemon world, so a line distinguishing animal from Pokemon could be drawn. But, isn't this all outside of "what you see"? I can't say for sure, though, because these exceptions are also somewhat common knowledge.

I feel these things should be tagged, even though technically they may be a bit insincere. My reasoning is not necessarily tagging what you see, but tagging what is useful. Shouldn't Charizard, Dragonite, and so on, be tagged as dragon when they obviously are, and at times appear more dragon-y than other dragon porn? Wouldn't it be more useful to tag Tyrantrum as a dinosaur than miss it completely when you going on a dinosaur porn-hunting mode?

What if someone wants to blacklist age differences but keeps seeing Charizard on Charmander? Or, conversely, if you're someone like me who actually wants to search the tags "age_difference charizard charmander"? And, even though age difference isn't explicit like genitals, it technically can never be determined accurately with furries, since furries are based on a whole animal kingdom of vastly differing lifespans and age of maturities. The point is that the age_difference tag is based entirely on assumption for every case, and so it should be fine to extend that assumption to Pokemon. But that's just my two cents.

My main, non-rhetorical question: should or should not animal tags and the age_difference tag be used Pokemon, and what's the rationale?

Pokemon should never be tagged with other animals that share the same traits, no matter how similar they look. But they can be tagged with their species tag group (like canine, feline, reptile, avain etc.)

And I think yeah, age_difference can be used on the post if its noticeable enough, based on assumption.

not all pokemon are animals, like those based on ice cream cones, chandeliers, and keychains (where are you're brains, pokemon designers? cause things have gotten increasingly weird as years go by.)

regarding the whole determining age by evolution stage thing. yeah, i still remember lepepper and his insisting that guilmon is a cub just because it's a rookie (since by his logic, with digimon rookie = cub, champion = teen, ultimate = adult, etc. >.>). i'm not getting into that messy can of worms again, i'll leave that one to admin.

edit: actually, come to think of it, there is a few specific pokemon that do have child-like evolutions (pichu, and that one evolution of hitmontop iirc) but those don't apply to all pokemon.

treos said:
not all pokemon are animals, like those based on ice cream cones, chandeliers, and keychains (where are you're brains, pokemon designers? cause things have gotten increasingly weird as years go by.)

Have they really though? Generation I had Magnemite and Magneton, a bunch of magnets, and Grimer and Muk, which are living sewage.

Clawdragons said:
Have they really though? Generation I had Magnemite and Magneton, a bunch of magnets, and Grimer and Muk, which are living sewage.

Also Voltorb/Electrode, which are basically Pokeballs. And then there's Exeggcute, Jynx and Mr. Mime...

As far as I can see, Pokemon hasn't got any weirder since the first gen.

I've also seen the bestiality tag being used between anthro and feral Pokemon. I know that it's correct according to e621 standards but doesn't that imply that you're technically able to conduct bestiality in the games..?

post #579866

I don't think it's really a good idea to try and add the age_difference tag to things like Pokemon.

Just because a Pokemon is at a later stage of evolution doesn't necessarily mean it's older:

post #415715

Clawdragons said:
Have they really though? Generation I had Magnemite and Magneton, a bunch of magnets, and Grimer and Muk, which are living sewage.

you tell me. klefki, chandelure, vanilite

the first 2 are based on inanimate objects and the 3rd is based on food. :/ that seems pretty strange to me.

theres also that klinklang and i don't even know what that one supposed to be based on.

maybe it's not so much them being weird as it is i question where the creativity/originality has gone over time.

treos said:
you tell me. klefki, chandelure, vanilite

the first 2 are based on inanimate objects and the 3rd is based on food. :/ that seems pretty strange to me.

theres also that klinklang and i don't even know what that one supposed to be based on.

maybe it's not so much them being weird as it is i question where the creativity/originality has gone over time.

The point I'm making is that that is no different at all from the first generation. Again, how is Klefki, a keychain Pokemon, fundamentally different from Magnemite, a steel ball with magnets and screws attached?

How is Vanillite, who based on food, so much stranger than Grimer, who based on sewage?

The Pokemon of Generation I are not really any more creative than later Pokemon. Explain to me how Pidgey is creative. It's just a bird. Ekans is just a snake. Butterfree is just a butterfly. Raticate is just a rat.

It seems like a lot of people are totally blinded by nostalgia on this point. Again, as always, if you like Generation I more, just say that and be done with it, don't use such weak justifications.

Clawdragons said:
The point I'm making is that that is no different at all from the first generation. Again, how is Klefki, a keychain Pokemon, fundamentally different from Magnemite, a steel ball with magnets and screws attached?

How is Vanillite, who based on food, so much stranger than Grimer, who based on sewage?

The Pokemon of Generation I are not really any more creative than later Pokemon. Explain to me how Pidgey is creative. It's just a bird. Ekans is just a snake. Butterfree is just a butterfly. Raticate is just a rat.

It seems like a lot of people are totally blinded by nostalgia on this point. Again, as always, if you like Generation I more, just say that and be done with it, don't use such weak justifications.

Pokémon designs have only been getting better with each generation and ever-evolving hardware.

Genjar said:
As far as I can see, Pokemon hasn't got any weirder since the first gen.

It has gotten a lot more spiky though. So many spikes... D: Not to mention how many recent legendaries seem to have been made by glueing random shapes together.

But yeah, gen 1 wasn't exactly flawless either.

Considering how long Pokemon has been around, the quality of the designs haven't deteriorated as much as I would have thought back in the day.

Coming to think of it, I might just prefer the early gen Pokemon due to nostalgia alone.

I wouldn't add the animal it resembles, but age_diffrence I would. But only on certain pokemon (Togepi, Pichu, Elekid, Magby, and any Baby Pokemon.)

Clawdragons said:
The point I'm making is that that is no different at all from the first generation. Again, how is Klefki, a keychain Pokemon, fundamentally different from Magnemite, a steel ball with magnets and screws attached?

How is Vanillite, who based on food, so much stranger than Grimer, who based on sewage?

The Pokemon of Generation I are not really any more creative than later Pokemon. Explain to me how Pidgey is creative. It's just a bird. Ekans is just a snake. Butterfree is just a butterfly. Raticate is just a rat.

It seems like a lot of people are totally blinded by nostalgia on this point. Again, as always, if you like Generation I more, just say that and be done with it, don't use such weak justifications.

"It's a seel, the most original pokemon. It's a seal with a horn!"

^{I think Gen 2 had the best designs}

DragonFox69 said:
I don't think it's really a good idea to try and add the age_difference tag to things like Pokemon.

Just because a Pokemon is at a later stage of evolution doesn't necessarily mean it's older:

post #415715

Arathun said:
...many-to-most of these cross-evolutional pairings seem obviously to be imitating the maturity difference in caricaturizing them, in all fairness.

But I see barely anyone tagging Pokemon in either way, despite the "tag-what-you-see" rule of thumb. And, sometimes, I see these tags being undone. I'm aware that Pokemon age technically can't be determined just by the evolution, as evolutions can be skipped. I am also aware that real-life animals also exist in the Pokemon world, so a line distinguishing animal from Pokemon could be drawn. But, isn't this all outside of "what you see"? I can't say for sure, though, because these exceptions are also somewhat common knowledge.

...

What if someone wants to blacklist age differences but keeps seeing Charizard on Charmander? Or, conversely, if you're someone like me who actually wants to search the tags "age_difference charizard charmander"? And, even though age difference isn't explicit like genitals, it technically can never be determined accurately with furries, since furries are based on a whole animal kingdom of vastly differing lifespans and age of maturities. The point is that the age_difference tag is based entirely on assumption for every case, and so it should be fine to extend that assumption to Pokemon. But that's just my two cents.

Thanks guys! I'll just tag it as I always have, I guess. And if someone undoes my tags, that'd be, just like, they're opinion man.

Personally, I've used square crossover for cases where a digimon and its "canon" evolution are having sex (i.e. post #407141, where age_difference may be arguable, certainly more so than with post #407144).

I'd certainly approve of a more useful tag for such a situation, though. It's a common situation that should be searchable.

Azarion said:
I've also seen the bestiality tag being used between anthro and feral Pokemon. I know that it's correct according to e621 standards but doesn't that imply that you're technically able to conduct bestiality in the games..?

post #579866

That's because this very reason is justification enough for either a) not using "anthro" for non-anthrofied pokemon in the first place or b) not having feral on anthro implicated to bestiality.

The problem really boils down to "feral" meaning two very different things: it's a "body structure" for anything that doesn't walk on two feet (THAT is what it means in anthro_on_feral ) but also animals that are draw so as to not appear sentient regardless of anthro status, cf. feral monkeys. And that meaning is the one upoen which the anthro_on_feral/feral_on_anthro -> bestiality implication is based.

This issue is probably worth a separate thread.

Circeus said:
Personally, I've used square crossover for cases where a digimon and its "canon" evolution are having sex (i.e. post #407141, where age_difference may be arguable, certainly more so than with post #407144).

I don't see how it applies. Digimon are a species, whereas square_crossover is for characters. And the evolution trees tend to vary a lot: those are different in most Digimon games and manga, there's no canon evolutions like in Pokemon.

Genjar said:
I don't see how it applies. Digimon are a species, whereas square_crossover is for characters. And the evolution trees tend to vary a lot: those are different in most Digimon games and manga, there's no canon evolutions like in Pokemon.

I did say "canon". By and large, 90%+ of evolution people use (and 99+% of those they actually draw) are those featured in the anime. The only one that can be reasonably called different is Digimon Savers' Agumon being called "GeoGreymon" instead of plain old Greymon.

Circeus said:

The problem really boils down to "feral" meaning two very different things: it's a "body structure" for anything that doesn't walk on two feet (THAT is what it means in anthro_on_feral ) but also animals that are draw so as to not appear sentient regardless of anthro status, cf. feral monkeys. And that meaning is the one upoen which the anthro_on_feral/feral_on_anthro -> bestiality implication is based.

Yeah, we go by body structure, we don't tag sapience to any degree that I know of (and certainly not for feral).

There's a blurry line between anthro and feral (particularly with pokémon/digimon where some are anthro in their canon form, and many aren't really either) but for simplicity <nonferal>_on_feral has always been considered bestiality for the purposes of tagging. There is some reason to believe that the tag itself is somewhat less useful than it once was now that x_on_feral is well-established, but I don't think we're at a position where we could depreciate the tag (even if we wanted to I mean).

Personally I think that the bestiality -> interspecies implication (e.g., anthro and feral horse) and mistagged anthro/human pairings have likely caused the bulk of the bestiality-related mistags, and is where I'd look first.

I know less about the square_crossover tag, but it sounds like a tag more tailored to pseudo-characters (pokémon/digimon) might be a good idea (though I'm less sure what I'd call it).

parasprite said:
I know less about the square_crossover tag--

I'm not sure if anyone knows much about it. I think it came from derpibooru (carried over by users who copy tags), and even they don't know what it is about: https://derpibooru.org/forums/meta/topics/square-crossover

They seem to think that it originated here, but I'm pretty sure that it didn't. Because I remember checking it back when it was first tagged here (since I had no idea what it meant), and noticed that it was copied from one of the pony boorus. Can't remember which.

We should probably rename it to something that makes more sense. Alternate_self? Nah, that's probably not descriptive enough.

Genjar said:
I'm not sure if anyone knows much about it. I think it came from derpibooru (carried over by users who copy tags), and even they don't know what it is about: https://derpibooru.org/forums/meta/topics/square-crossover

They seem to think that it originated here, but I'm pretty sure that it didn't. Because I remember checking it back when it was first tagged here (since I had no idea what it meant), and noticed that it was copied from one of the pony boorus.

We should probably rename it to something that makes more sense. Alternate_self? Nah, that's probably not descriptive enough.

I thought square crossover was technically for alternate versions of the same character (e.g. classic goofy and goof_troop goofy, old-timey mickey and kingdom_hearts mickey...).

level_difference or evolution_difference seem like good fits for what we have here.

Circeus said:
I thought square crossover was technically for alternate versions of the same character (e.g. classic goofy and goof_troop goofy, old-timey mickey and kingdom_hearts mickey...).

Yep, that's how I've understood it. But it doesn't work with the selfcest -> square_crossover implication. Since selfcest isn't limited to alternate versions: it can be tagged for clones, etc.

And selfcest is also often tagged for creatures that have multiple heads, such as chimeras and hydras. Which don't fit under square_crossover. That's definitely something that needs to be sorted out someday.

post #534655

level_difference or evolution_difference seem like good fits for what we have here.

For Pokemon/Digimon? Yes, something like that would definitely fit better than square_crossover. Level_difference isn't something that I'd consider visible, but evolution_difference might work...

Jugofthat said:
But yeah, gen 1 wasn't exactly flawless either.

Case in point:

post #693261

Excusez-moi for the kick (hon hon hon, but uploading that thing made me realize how fugly Hitmonlee's design is. I mean, wtf am I even looking at, a grilled chicken leg with eyes?

Jugofthat said:
Case in point:

post #693261

Excusez-moi for the kick (hon hon hon, but uploading that thing made me realize how fugly Hitmonlee's design is. I mean, wtf am I even looking at, a grilled chicken leg with eyes?

Yeah the designers didn't honor Bruce Lee that well with this one.

Azarion said:
Yeah the designers didn't honor Bruce Lee that well with this one.

not sure how well they did jackie chan with hitmonchan either. i don't recall ever seeing jackie wearing anything with a skirt. could've happened in a movie at some point though.

Azarion said:
Yeah the designers didn't honor Bruce Lee that well with this one.

Just the translators. The original names of those mons are completely different. Hitmonchan is Ebiwalar, named after Hiroyuki Ebihara, Japanese world-champion boxer. And the official art makes it clear that Hitmonchan are wearing some kind of (frilly) boxer shorts, though most fan artists draw it as a skirt..

And Hitmonlee is based on Tadashi Sawamura. Japanese kickboxer.

Jugofthat said:
Not to mention how many recent legendaries seem to have been made by glueing random shapes together.

The new legendary: Porygon Omega!