Implicating bowser_peach → bowser
Link to implication

Reason:

New tag that recently cropped up. Apparently it's a fanmade concept of bowser similar to bowsette_meme, but without the supercrown and seemingly with locked down traits such as the red hair and green hat.

Initially, I removed the tag from its images, but after doing some research, this is a real fan character, so I added it back in and wrote a wiki stub for it.

Other possible courses of action are to implicate to fan_character or to alias this tag to bowser.

Either way, before I do any more tag edits relating to this, I'd better wait for an admin to set a precedent.

EDIT: The tag implication bowser_peach -> bowser (forum #263095) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.

It's not a fanmade concept, it's from concept art for Mario Odyssey that wasn't used.

It's official concept art. Also 8 out of 9 images uploaded were from me, could have just DMd me about it.

Blind_Guardian said:
It's official concept art. Also 8 out of 9 images uploaded were from me, could have just DMd me about it.

Okay, next time I'm about to change tags applied by a janitor/admin, I'll shoot a DM.

(from tag wiki)
Images tagged with this tag should not be tagged with Bowser, as this is an official fused character.

This is both to @Furrin_Gok (who edited the tag wiki) and @Blind_Guardian (who originally added the tag). I do have some questions about this "not" being bowser, though. As it is a transformation of peach into bowser, what about Cappy? In images where Mario possesses something else via Cappy, the image is still tagged with Mario (precedent: post #1286827 post #1502866 post #1419203, via cappy_(mario) possession). Shouldn't it be the same thing, then, with bowser_peach? That it should imply both bowser and princess_peach?

hungryman said:
Okay, next time I'm about to change tags applied by a janitor/admin, I'll shoot a DM.

This is both to @Furrin_Gok (who edited the tag wiki) and @Blind_Guardian (who originally added the tag). I do have some questions about this "not" being bowser, though. As it is a transformation of peach into bowser, what about Cappy? In images where Mario possesses something else via Cappy, the image is still tagged with Mario (precedent: post #1286827 post #1502866 post #1419203, via cappy_(mario) possession). Shouldn't it be the same thing, then, with bowser_peach? That it should imply both bowser and princess_peach?

Those are unnamed fusions. I guess we could nickname them things like mario_frog and such, but because they're unnamed they'd still be tagged as Mario.

Mario Bowser however, could certainly be one to be tagged and not get Mario or Bowser tags, as Bowser's not some nameless mook.

Furrin_Gok said:
Those are unnamed fusions. I guess we could nickname them things like mario_frog and such, but because they're unnamed they'd still be tagged as Mario.

Mario Bowser however, could certainly be one to be tagged and not get Mario or Bowser tags, as Bowser's not some nameless mook.

Compromise: I added bowser_peach and bowsette_meme to the bowser tag wiki for discoverability and since they are closely related to bowser.

A question: Should the anthro Peachser images get the Princess_Peach tag?
post #1664395 post #1661455

Furrin_Gok said:
A question: Should the anthro Peachser images get the Princess_Peach tag?
post #1664395 post #1661455

I remember commenting on the big forum about how if it's truly ambiguous whether a character is bowsette or just peach with bowser cosplay, that it should be tagged with both. So I would say both if it's ambiguous, otherwise, use bowsette_meme. Where I'm coming from is TWYS. When I see bowser_peach, I think it's a female version of bowser, which is why I added the bowser tag, because that's what I would search to find it. But since there's a TWYK (K=know) element to characters, I get that bowser_peach is considered a different character. The difference with bowsette is that we know it's bowser and not at all peach, hence peach and bowser should both be tagged if it's ambiguous who it actually is (e.g. bowsette without the shell, tail, horns, spike paraphernalia or super crown clearly visible). Because TWYS. Even if you happen to know that it's Bowsette, not everyone who goes searching for it will know that.

Sure, it's inconvenient to have questionably-relevant images crop up in a certain tag, but I think search intent should trump accuracy.

And I'm not trying to argue, I just want you to understand where I'm coming from. You clearly know what you're doing and I'd like to know where you are coming from.

So what do you think of it?

Furrin_Gok said:

I think we should probably make another forum about this, because I just edited princess_peach out of a bowsette image and noticed while double-checking the history (to make sure the tag actually got removed) that you were the one who originally put it in, and I don't want you to think I'm doing it to be an asshole.

The tag implication bowser_peach -> bowser (forum #263095) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.