Probably a massive job (I'm willing to individually suggest implications for this), but I think maybe pokémon with clear associated species should imply what they're based off of.

Caterpie should imply caterpillar.
Rattata should imply rat.
Beedrill should imply bee.
Growlithe should imply canine.
Ursaring should imply bear.
Goldeen should imply fish.
Etc.

Additionally, perhaps typing tags implied by each pokémon? I figure if that's ever going to be implemented it would just be easier overall to do it all at once rather than to have to go back through some other time.

fire_type_pokémon
water_type_pokémon
Etc.

(For some reason the tag "fire_type" exists is aliased to "pokémon", but "water_type" and more don't exist. Besides that, "pokémon" should be implied by "fire_type" rather than aliased to it.)

Opinions?

-1. Pokemon are to be explicitly NOT tagged as specific species. This is a rule set in place to make it easier to blacklist fictional animals from real animals. They can be tagged as base species however, like canine or lagomorph.

Also, a pokemon can be drawn in a different form than what they normally look like, making this species implication not too great.

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:
-1. Pokemon are to be explicitly NOT tagged as specific species. This is a rule set in place to make it easier to blacklist fictional animals from real animals. They can be tagged as base species however, like canine or lagomorph.

Also, a pokemon can be drawn in a different form than what they normally look like, making this species implication not too great.

I considered this, but that said, many anthropomorphic dogs are classified under "canine." So anthropomorphized Pokémon should be no exception, correct?

EiXXXo said:
I considered this, but that said, many anthropomorphic dogs are classified under "canine." So anthropomorphized Pokémon should be no exception, correct?

A growlithe that is anthropomorphized but is styled like, say, a dragon (ala dragonification), then the canine tag wouldn't apply. It would not be good to have an implication like that

post #1494799 post #1495917 post #1470341

Speaking of which: I've seen arcanine stylized several times as more feline than canine, making a canine implication just flat out inaccurate for these portrayals. A base species implication for pokemon species just would not be practical and would lead to mistags imho.

Fair enough!

What do you think about the typing tags?

Pokemon and digimon are rare exceptions of species that should not imply species tags. They are considered characters as well, since they also get alternate_species, alternate_color, and can get crossgender in some cases. They don't have to look like their default form, have their default form appear a certain way, or be their canonical gender (if they have one), so most implications can't work.

EiXXXo said:
Fair enough!

What do you think about the typing tags?

-1 to that idea too; it's information that's more or less gained from outside information, and imho would probably not be too practical in the long run, especially with pokemon who resemble other typings but actually are something else (lurantis for example)

Siral_Exan said:
Pokemon and digimon are rare exceptions of species that should not imply species tags. They are considered characters as well, since they also get alternate_species, alternate_color, and can get crossgender in some cases. They don't have to look like their default form, have their default form appear a certain way, or be their canonical gender (if they have one), so most implications can't work.

The crossgender rule in regards to pokemon and digimon species was recently changed actually. According to the wiki:

This tag does not apply to the rare genderswaps of species that are normally all-female or all-male, it only applies based on the character's "original" gender.

Other than that, yeah, your points are true.

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:
The crossgender rule in regards to pokemon and digimon species was recently changed actually. According to the wiki:

I know, but that's an exception, not the standard.

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:
-1 to that idea too; it's information that's more or less gained from outside information, and imho would probably not be too practical in the long run, especially with pokemon who resemble other typings but actually are something else (lurantis for example)

I think the outliers aren't representative of the overall theme of a typing, Lurantis being specifically designed as an outlier.

Siral_Exan said:
I know, but that's an exception, not the standard.

fair enough!

EiXXXo said:
I think the outliers aren't representative of the overall theme of a typing, Lurantis being specifically designed as an outlier.

Well I mean, there's more examples:

stunfisk (looks water, isnt), gyarados/lugia/charizard (looks dragon, isnt), alolan exeggutor (is dragon type, doesn't look dragon, though it is a reference to the dracaena plant genus), etc etc

It's pretty common, honestly, and doesn't seem useful if used to organize/categorize pokemon

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:
It's pretty common, honestly, and doesn't seem useful if used to organize/categorize pokemon

I think it's less common that it might seem. Even if gyarados doesn't have a dragon tpying, it fits into water just fine. Lugia fits well into flying. Charizard fits well into fire. Alolan Exeggcutor fits perfectly fine into grass typing. If someone types water_type_pokemon into the search, they're going to find exactly what they're looking for.

Basically, if you just look any type up on Google, the theme is incredibly clear among just what you're going to be looking at. Even the outliers fit into their own typings.

im not gonna take part to the discussion wether the type tags are useful or not, but i can say that implications are out of question because 1. silvally for example 2. people draw type swaps of pokemons (see the entirety of fire/fighting dex posted here)

siikaprinssi said:
eople draw type swaps of pokemons

That's a point I hadn't considered.

Oh well.

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:
it's information that's more or less gained from outside information

Please explain the 'canonical outside information' argument to me; how is it any more twyk than pokémon species?

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
Please explain the 'canonical outside information' argument to me; how is it any more twyk than pokémon species?

They're both TWYK, for sure, but typing can vary so drastically and have such different appearances that imho it just wouldn't form any tag coherency imho. A pikachu is a pikachu but a type swapped pikachu wouldn't be an electric type, or a stunfisk looks water type but isn't and sticks out like a sore thumb if searching for its typings.

All in all, in this case, imho I think it's more of a "is this functional and useful" over being TWYK or not

I think... having a type-tag COULD be useful, but it shouldn't be implied, which means 99% of people aren't going to remember to use it, which means it's not ACTUALLY going to be useful.

D'we have a tag for type-swapped pokemon?

SnowWolf said:D'we have a tag for type-swapped pokemon?

If there's not, I suggest "Delta Species" since it was used in the Pokemon TCG to denote a Pokemon that was presented as a type it wasn't normally part of (fire type Mew for example: https://52f4e29a8321344e30ae-0f55c9129972ac85d6b1f4e703468e6b.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/products/pictures/298077.jpg )

Just putting that out there since it's a Pokemon specific term that I knew of. Type_swapped_(pokemon) might be a suggestion as well?

wolftacos said:
If there's not, I suggest "Delta Species" since it was used in the Pokemon TCG to denote a Pokemon that was presented as a type it wasn't normally part of (fire type Mew for example: https://52f4e29a8321344e30ae-0f55c9129972ac85d6b1f4e703468e6b.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/products/pictures/298077.jpg )

Just putting that out there since it's a Pokemon specific term that I knew of. Type_swapped_(pokemon) might be a suggestion as well?

I thought that was purely a creation for the sake of Pokemon Insurgence, such as the fairy type bulbasaur

Furrin_Gok said:
I thought that was purely a creation for the sake of Pokemon Insurgence, such as the fairy type bulbasaur

Ah, then I'm not sure then. I've never heard of Pokemon Insurgence. I only play the games and used to do the card game. Whoops D:

Pokemon with type swappings tend to be tagged fakemon and/or alternate species/color, depending on a bunch of factors. That's how I've been tagging my type swap pools anyways, it seems to be the best combo of tags for this. Usually they're almost all at least tagged fakemon, but alternate color/species depends on the individual post's context.

wolftacos said:
Ah, then I'm not sure then. I've never heard of Pokemon Insurgence. I only play the games and used to do the card game. Whoops D:

Well, it appeared on legitimate pokemon cards. Apparently "EX Delta Species" was a 2005 set of cards. Insurgence probably came about much later.

I was looking through the forums because I was thinking the same thing. I think type tagging would be useful for searching. For example, I want to look at bug-type pokemon, but there isn't a tag for them, nor does everyone tag pokemon with real-life phylum, e.g. "arthropod."

royalsoda said:
I was looking through the forums because I was thinking the same thing. I think type tagging would be useful for searching. For example, I want to look at bug-type pokemon, but there isn't a tag for them, nor does everyone tag pokemon with real-life phylum, e.g. "arthropod."

Types (as separate from existing tags like elemental_manipulation) don't really work with TWYS. For example: what part of Absol's design suggests that it's a dark-type? What features would have to change for an Absol to be tagged as a ghost-type, fighting-type, flying-type, steel-type, fairy-type, or psychic-type?

The problem is ultimately the site considers pokemon species to be pseudo-characters. You can't imply anything like that from a pokemon species in case it's drawn to not look like that species, just like a character can be drawn as an alternate species. e.g. if you draw a caterpie as a human, you have a human, not a bug-type pokemon or anthropod, but it's still caterpie.

Though I do see this broken in some cases. Pichu, riolu, cleffa, and some others implicate baby_pokémon, even though they can follow the above logic and be drawn as something that doesn't look like a young/baby pokemon. Mew, lugia, xerneas, etc, implicate legendary_pokémon, even though they can be drawn to look like something other than a legendary pokemon (and legendary pokemon aren't unique, there can be multiple latios or celebi, for example, and they don't always appear as a legendary pokemon even in official material).

Personally, I find the logic a bit flawed; if a particular pokemon is unique and prominent enough to be identified across different species, it can be given a "real" name that doesn't implicate its species. The site even already does this -- in Explorers of Time/Darkness/Sky, there is a unique grovyle character that's simply called Grovyle, but here he has the tag grovyle_the_thief to identify him separately from his species, and works fine regardless of if he's drawn as a grovyle or human or something else (other characters like guildmaster_wigglytuff and dusknoir_(eotds) also follow suit). And it seems a bit silly to not be able to implicate grovyle to reptile or something, because grovyle_the_thief might be drawn as something other than a grovyle.

But that's just me.

royalsoda said:
I was looking through the forums because I was thinking the same thing. I think type tagging would be useful for searching. For example, I want to look at bug-type pokemon, but there isn't a tag for them, nor does everyone tag pokemon with real-life phylum, e.g. "arthropod."

Its impossible to use type as phylum. It wouldnt work. Especially for psychic types and dark types. And rock types.

For example. How am I supposed to tell what a psychic type is by looking at it. Both metagross (a machine) and Kadabra (a fox) are psychic types.
Lets try dark types. What suggests that houndour is a dark type. Its a dog. And its black. Does that mean that all dobermans are Dark Type animals?

Lugarugan/Lycanroc is a rock type. How does that even work.

Types are arbitrarily based on thr Pokémon's individual strengths not the configuration of their body.

Can you explain what being a "fire type" means? A water type can create water. So all humans are water types because we can spit and we sweat.

It doesnt work. And the reason it doesnt work is because its an RPG elemental system.

In the worlds watsonian perspective it may work as some stratified system that identifies species.

But any amount of doylist scrutiny reveals that types ONLY exist as a medium for the game to function.

*Note: These DO make great lore tags.

lafcadio said:
Types (as separate from existing tags like elemental_manipulation) don't really work with TWYS. For example: what part of Absol's design suggests that it's a dark-type? What features would have to change for an Absol to be tagged as a ghost-type, fighting-type, flying-type, steel-type, fairy-type, or psychic-type?

demesejha said:
Its impossible to use type as phylum. It wouldnt work. Especially for psychic types and dark types. And rock types.

For example. How am I supposed to tell what a psychic type is by looking at it. Both metagross (a machine) and Kadabra (a fox) are psychic types.
Lets try dark types. What suggests that houndour is a dark type. Its a dog. And its black. Does that mean that all dobermans are Dark Type animals?

Lugarugan/Lycanroc is a rock type. How does that even work.

Types are arbitrarily based on thr Pokémon's individual strengths not the configuration of their body.

Can you explain what being a "fire type" means? A water type can create water. So all humans are water types because we can spit and we sweat.

It doesnt work. And the reason it doesnt work is because its an RPG elemental system.

In the worlds watsonian perspective it may work as some stratified system that identifies species.

But any amount of doylist scrutiny reveals that types ONLY exist as a medium for the game to function.

*Note: These DO make great lore tags.

I don't really understand why the Pokemon has to look like the typing. Lots of them don't, but that doesn't mean that they aren't the typing. Regardless of what they look like, they already have a type set by the game, so I don't see why there'd be a discrepancy. Elemental typing is something specific to Pokemon, so there's no reason it would affect non-Pokemon like dobermans or humans.

I can understand when things get a little different, like personifying a caterpie or fakemon.

Personally, I'd find egg group tags more interesting than typing. But that'd definitely be outside information. Couldn't tell that Gardevoir and Slugma are in same egg group by looking at them, etc.

This kind of data, typing and egg groups, is probably best left to the wiki entries.

royalsoda said:
I don't really understand why the Pokemon has to look like the typing. Lots of them don't, but that doesn't mean that they aren't the typing. Regardless of what they look like, they already have a type set by the game, so I don't see why there'd be a discrepancy. Elemental typing is something specific to Pokemon, so there's no reason it would affect non-Pokemon like dobermans or humans.

The point they're making is about TWYS. Although that may or may not be a moot point considering baby pokémon, legendary pokémon, etc.

royalsoda said:
I don't really understand why the Pokemon has to look like the typing. Lots of them don't, but that doesn't mean that they aren't the typing.

Because of Tag What You See. You can't see a typing, so there's no way to tag it from seeing it. It could work better as a lore tag since that doesn't require visual affirmation, but that has another problem; different games may give pokemon different types. For example, in Gen2/Gold/Silver, Snubbull was pure normal-type, then Gen6/X/Y added the fairy type and it became pure fairy-type. When new types are added, it's not unusual for some preexisting pokemon to have their types tweaked for design and balancing purposes, and these type changes can affect remakes. A Snubbull character in Red/Blue Rescue Team (a Gen3-based game) is normal type, but that same Snubbull character in Rescue Team DX (pseudo-Gen6-based?) is fairy type. So what would be the appropriate lore tag for an image depicting the Snubbull character in the Rescue Team setting?

royalsoda said:
I don't really understand why the Pokemon has to look like the typing. Lots of them don't, but that doesn't mean that they aren't the typing. Regardless of what they look like, they already have a type set by the game, so I don't see why there'd be a discrepancy. Elemental typing is something specific to Pokemon, so there's no reason it would affect non-Pokemon like dobermans or humans.

I can understand when things get a little different, like personifying a caterpie or fakemon.

In twys it either has to apply universally or not at all.

royalsoda said:
I don't really understand why the Pokemon has to look like the typing.

Because the entire site's tagging system, sans the comparatively recent "lore" category, relies on things looking like the tags they're normally tagged with.

watsit said:
A Snubbull character in Red/Blue Rescue Team (a Gen3-based game) is normal type, but that same Snubbull character in Rescue Team DX (pseudo-Gen6-based?) is fairy type. So what would be the appropriate lore tag for an image depicting the Snubbull character in the Rescue Team setting?

Oh yeah, updating type tags is going to be a fucking nightmare if types ever change again. Imagine if these tags were implemented before Fairy was added, that's 7,101 tag edits for Gardevoir alone. Imagine Lucario changing from fighting/steel to something else, that's 12,983 posts that'll need tag edits.
Definitely another point against implementing these tags.