Basically, I am assuming and am predicting cases where recognizable or otherwise characters, like this one, without any copyrights are put into a copyright, for instance said character fucking a Pokémon. The Pokemon in question is not a fan_character, but neither would be the character.

So, I am thinking of a tag for these instances that would function like fan character, but inversed: the character put into a copyrighted world, instead of a character made in a copyrighted world.

I initially thought of self_insert, since it exists, but I immediately thought of the literal term: the author, a real life person, inserting themselves into their literature. But, this would both be TWYK and hard to tag, the only example I can give is Andrew Hussie quite literally inserting himself into his webcomic, Homestuck, as an official character (that, and it would be easier to rationalize using your fursona instead of you). I then thought up of character_insert, where a non-copyrighted character is put into a copyrighted world, be it a game, webcomic, book, or maybe even art if you want to go that far. This is not to discard self insert, it can still be used with source information.

In summary: should we recognize/use a tag called character_insert, where characters that do not have copyrights behind them are put into a copyrighted setting.

Here are some examples (updating):
post #1117034 post #1079096 post #1055555
post #1027708 post #1025981 post #995663

This does seem, to me, to be the sort of thing a person might want to blacklist.

To be clear though, you talked quite a bit about inserting a character into 'a copyright world.' To what extent is the world a part of this? For example, a fursona fucking a pokemon in a pokemon gym would obviously fall under the tag as you explained it. What them fucking in an in-determinant location ? What about non-canon variants of copyright characters on non-copyright furry ? What about copyright characters with in-determinant partners ? What about a fursona character in a pokemon center, with no other characters?

Personally, it seems like it would be useful to me, but would need a clearly written wiki page to make sure it isn't overused.

Fillyosopher said:
This does seem, to me, to be the sort of thing a person might want to blacklist.

To be clear though, you talked quite a bit about inserting a character into 'a copyright world.' To what extent is the world a part of this? For example, a fursona fucking a pokemon in a pokemon gym would obviously fall under the tag as you explained it. What them fucking in an in-determinant location ? What about non-canon variants of copyright characters on non-copyright furry ? What about copyright characters with in-determinant partners ? What about a fursona character in a pokemon center, with no other characters?

Personally, it seems like it would be useful to me, but would need a clearly written wiki page to make sure it isn't overused.

Three of the four of those answers itself: if there is evidence that there is a copyright (I use the term because we call them that in the tag catagory) that the characters are being placed in, then it would get the tag. Those characters do not exist in the copyright world. Fan characters "exist", but not officially.

But that second to last one is just a fennekin and a human. Characters are literal, they need to have a name. Otherwise, it just needs to not be a fan_character.

Sorry, but I am not seeing any good justification for this tag be created. Also it seems to have considerable probability to not end well (maybe I am just being pessimistic)

Note: we already have a forum thread specifically dedicated for discusions about new tags.

O16 said:
Sorry, but I am not seeing any good justification for this tag be created. Also it seems to have considerable probability to not end well (maybe I am just being pessimistic)

Note: we already have a forum thread specifically dedicated for discusions about new tags.

Noted, but take my past experiences that I tend to dominate threads with fervor. I am a hypocrite as well, it irritates me when people constantly chip in, sometimes going on tangent or off topic, in a "general" thread. So, I'd prefer to quarantine myself into a focused one.

O16 said:
Note: we already have a forum thread specifically dedicated for discusions about new tags.

It was NEVER intended for that, hence why I created a new "tag announcement thread". The "tag discussion" thread has become a meandering labyrinth of interwoven discussions that's pretty much useless for anything at this stage.

I definitely agree with you that there is little to no justification whatsoever for such a tag.

But, please give me examples on how this could be abused. Apologies for sectioning, I sincerely do not want walls of text.

I think such a tag would be too broad to be useful. Basically any post with a character from outside the Pokemon universe plus a Pokemon would have this tag. Any post with Krystal and a character not from Star Fox. Any post with a Renamon and something not a Digimon.

I did a search and roughly 30% of pokemon chartags:>0 -solo order:random posts would have this tag. That's thousands of posts and I don't think that's practical or useful. There's just too many like post #949979, post #402399, post #972301, post #739406, post #484417, post #340615, post #803837 and that's just a few minutes of looking at one Pokemon specifically.

Your argument is where, then? Wouldn't fan character be literally the same thing, in your argument? Far too broad, it currently applies to any non-official character made in a copyright, it doesn't give a fuck out individual copyrights, one of its few limiting factors, the fact that it only applies when the character is based off of a franchise or etc. (specifically, the alias from OC causes a problem)?

This tag is meant to be like fan character, except in the inverse even outlined in the wiki, in context of the copyright: Most traditional furry characters do not need this tag.

But, would you like to argue the logistics of having fan character as a tag? As of typing, there is over 32k tagged, countless more that need to be tagged, and all of the above featuring limited use for this site. But it is used for organizing for potential blacklisting, do you have any more uses you can list?

But if you don't understand: fan character and this tag would be parralel inverses; they both are used in limited, but broad, posts that feature a character, that isn't official, in a copyright.

My argument is that tags are supposed to facilitate searching, and a character_insert tag would not do that effectively. It would be difficult for taggers and not very useful for searchers.

Yes, fan_character is not a useful tag either. It's too broad, impossible to tag properly and the implications are a mess. titanmelon is working on that (forum #218606) but it's truly a herculean task. The only reason we have this tag is because so many posts were tagged with ponysona and pokesona. The fan_character tag puts all this in one place.

fan_character and character_insert are complementary, but the former is difficult enough already and I don't think we need the latter.

The tag would aid in searching, either specifically vague images where you do not remember the character, but know the species/copyright, and to find characters in the first place, in context of the copyright (for instance, a character that is literally a wolf coddling a singular Pokemon, instead of a mistagged canine Pokemon coddling a singular Pokemon). It can help you cut the excess that you do not want to find.

It is context sensitive, more limited than most tags but still like tags; the main use is the equally important blacklisting. After all, there is no "simple", general way to blacklist characters from official characters without whitelisting suffixes, and that is a shot in the dark because not all known characters (often species that're named) in the copyrights have the specific suffix. Basically, you're shit outta luck unless you're patient and/or OK with long, specific blacklisting.

leomole said:
I think such a tag would be too broad to be useful. Basically any post with a character from outside the Pokemon universe plus a Pokemon would have this tag. Any post with Krystal and a character not from Star Fox. Any post with a Renamon and something not a Digimon.

Isn't that what crossover is for?

BlueDingo said:
Isn't that what crossover is for?

Crossover is two copyrights, my tag would be just one. I thought that too, but I reread and interpreted that they mean the character of a copyright. The character drags the copyright with them, so if it is just renamon and Krystal in a white void, it is still a crossover.

Apon thinking that over, the only limitation would be a TWYK scenario, where they are "dragged" out of their copyright (and into, say, a regular bedroom). This is obvious if it a comic/story, but otherwise I'm saying it is safe to tag as the character entering a copyright.

Character/setting from one series plus character/setting from another series = crossover (post #251653)
Noncanonical character created within a series = fan_character (post #277938)
Character not from a series (like a fursona) inserted into a series = character_insert (post #402399)

Again though I don't think the last one is that useful.

leomole said:
Character/setting from one series plus character/setting from another series = crossover
Noncanonical character created within a series = fan_character
Character not from a series (like a fursona) inserted into a series = character_insert

Indeed.

The only clear way I can see a character entering another copyright's location is if that location is iconic or recognizable enough, like Sharpedo Bluff or Princess Peach's Castle.

BlueDingo said:
The only clear way I can see a character entering another copyright's location is if that location is iconic or recognizable enough, like Sharpedo Bluff or Princess Peach's Castle.

Or, an initial thought was a Pokemon center. But I got the concept from the very first thumbnails, two or more entities interacting with eachother, but I source at least one of the characters as not part of the copyright.