Implicating digimon_(species) → leomon
Link to implication

I flipped all the implications and consolidated them into this thread.

The following are also being implied:

Will be updated as necessary.

Knotty_Curls said:
I flipped all the implications and consolidated them into this thread.

The following are also being implied:

• renamon
• taomon
• veemon
• patamon
• lillymon
• impmon
• guilmon
• gatomon
• gargomon
• gabumon
• exveemon
• agumon

Will be updated as necessary.

Bless you. I about died when I refreshed the forum a few minutes ago...

Knotty_Curls said:

• renamon
• taomon
• veemon
• patamon
• lillymon
• impmon
• guilmon
• gatomon
• gargomon
• gabumon
• exveemon
• agumon

All of those other than lillymon are already properly implicated, aren't they?

There's a difference between the franchise and the species. The same thing happened with pokémon a while back.

Knotty_Curls said:
There's a difference between the franchise and the species. The same thing happened with pokémon a while back.

I am tentative to ask, but could we consider this for a few other things?

I'm not sure if I can think of any other franchises off hand that deserve this, but it seems like it might be a good thing for any of the "world of many monsters" cartoons and franchises out there. I kinda want to pick on youkai watch, but I'm pretty sure that that is a personal pet peeve.

There are the Yo-Kai from Yo-Kai_Watch, yokai, which may need to be suffixed and implicated since the majority of them are "Fake" yokai/youkai.

Then again, the idea behind yokai is that anything and everything can become a yokai once it's existed long enough to be infused with spirit.

Do we really need a separate tag for this? The overlap between digimon and digimon_(species) is 100%. And that's not an exaggeration, it's literally closer to 100% than 99%. I randomly sampled hundreds of digimon posts to determine this number. Pictures of digimon that do NOT involve digimon_(species) (like post #601159) are extremely rare.

The digimon_(species) tag adds 0 information for the user while taking up space and effort on the tagging side. So far only one person has been using this tag, Shinemon311 the creator of this thread.

The pokémon_(species) tag is useful because there are many objects, symbols and human characters associated with pokémon that are not pokémon_(species). This does not apply to digimon.

Off the top of my head, there are human characters and the digivices. The latter isn't implicated yet.

EDIT - and yes, similar franchise/species issues are up for cleaning as well.

Furrin_Gok said:
There are the Yo-Kai from Yo-Kai_Watch, yokai, which may need to be suffixed and implicated since the majority of them are "Fake" yokai/youkai.

Then again, the idea behind yokai is that anything and everything can become a yokai once it's existed long enough to be infused with spirit.

I dunno, I admit I get pretty triggered whenever I go looking over at those tags. The franchise has 770 posts, there are 289 posts under yo-kai, 203 under youkai, 74 under yokai, 38 under yookai, 23 under yōkai... *twitch twitch*

SOMETHING needs cleaning up... and the fake-yokai really need to be separated from the 'real' youkai. ... but, again, some of that might be me being annoyed at the popular franchise in the middle of my non-franchise art.

Knotty_Curls said:
Off the top of my head, there are human characters and the digivices. The latter isn't implicated yet.

That's a good point but all of the digivice posts are already tagged with digimon and all of them include digimon_(species). So the digimon_(species) tag is still completely superfluous.

leomole said:
So the digimon_(species) tag is still completely superfluous.

Is it really?

leomole said:
post #601159

You've found proof that it happens your own self. The difficulty in finding them now is that we haven't yet implied the species tag.

leomole said:
That's a good point but all of the digivice posts are already tagged with digimon and all of them include digimon_(species).

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/26592522/ (Warning: Diaper) Images exist. They just aren't here, or aren't tagged here.

leomole said:
Do we really need a separate tag for this? The overlap between digimon and digimon_(species) is 100%. And that's not an exaggeration, it's literally closer to 100% than 99%. I randomly sampled hundreds of digimon posts to determine this number. Pictures of digimon that do NOT involve digimon_(species) (like post #601159) are extremely rare.

The point of this kind of system is to separate fantasy creatures (digimon_(species)) from humans, artifacts, and perhaps locations in the same universe (digimon) while still allowing taggers to note that these things come from that universe. not_furry doesn't work because some digimon are humanoids.

The digimon_(species) tag adds 0 information for the user while taking up space and effort on the tagging side. So far only one person has been using this tag, Shinemon311 the creator of this thread.

If digimons' names didn't end in "-mon"... then the tag would add information. As it stands, digimon_(species) might only separate digimon from non-digimon species also ending in "-mon".

If digimon_(species) were implicated everywhere appropriately, then the tag's existence would add no tagging burden. Just tag the digimon's species as before and move on. I do not believe I have ever manually tagged the Nintendo or Pokémon franchises. If you tagged open_smile, would you also tag open_mouth and smile manually or would you not just take advantage of the implications to tag them for you?

The pokémon_(species) tag is useful because there are many objects, symbols and human characters associated with pokémon that are not pokémon_(species). This does not apply to digimon.

This is what I actually take issue with. If you've played the digimon video or card games for more than a day, then you should know the Digimon franchise has its fair share of artifacts. The "problem" with a lot of them is they usually aren't distinctive or memorable. For instance, Pokémon has many visually distinct artifacts like tens of berries and pokéballs whereas Digimon has generic inventory items like a pill capsule as "medicine" and [color] floppy disks as "[type] powerup". The digimon toilet and I guess slime are unavoidably iconic, though. Also, digimon's naming scheme is often lazy: not only do the creatures' names end with "-mon", but the artifacts and other in-universe jargon often begin with "digi-".

Digimon has the same kinds of stuff as Pokémon, but Digimon isn't remotely as popular so we don't get to see the minor details as much. Probably not much profit seen in specializing Digimon's artifacts either, although Pokémon's more distinctive artifact designs (think more item finder than pokéball) probably had a tiny but real part in its success.

Some more digimon tags under digi* and *mon. I'd also recommend checking for some of the canon human characters that haven't been implicated yet.

Furrin_Gok said:
You've found proof that it happens your own self.

Images exist.

... Like I said, digimon -digimon_(species) posts exist but they are extremely rare. By a conservative estimate, 100±0.4% of digimon posts are also digimon_(species) posts. Feel free to take a look yourself at digimon order:random.

Furrin_Gok said:
The difficulty in finding them now is that we haven't yet implied the species tag.

You can perform a similar search right now. I blacklisted all Digimon species and searched for digimon characters and devices. After removing human-only posts (like post #110956), which no longer gets approved, I was left with 9 posts that are digimon but not digimon_(species): post #96779, post #153641, post #249128, post #476455, post #601159, post #1047624, post #1083787, post #1084765, post #1294588.

That's an underestimate but it's closer to the true figure, 99.96% of digimon posts are also digimon_(species) posts. You can count the number of exceptions on your fingers.

That's why I'm saying the digimon_(species) tag is superfluous. The negligible benefit does not outweigh the tagging costs.

abadbird said:
If digimon_(species) were implicated everywhere appropriately, then the tag's existence would add no tagging burden.

I would agree except maintaining implications properly is actually quite a bit of work. We still struggle with pokémon, for example shadow_lugia implies pokémon but not pokémon_(species). There are many Digimon species that don't even imply digimon right now. It becomes a mess very quickly. People also make up their own Pokémon and Digimon species (post #1247093, post #1031230, post #338972) so there's the question if these should get implicated as well. And there will always be things that slip through, like post #787939.

Bumping; while I agree that digimon posts without any digimon_(species) in them are much rarer than, say, pokémon posts with no pokémon_(species), I still think there are at least a good chunk of images with digimon imagery and iconography without necessarily having the digimon species in it. See the digimon crests, the human characters (and things like cosplaying human characters), symbols such as the digital hazard and zero units, digivices, etc.

While admittedly not as beneficial as pokémon_(species), I still think it's at least marginally useful to warrant a species tag. Mind you, since there are so many digimon, not every one of them might be implied with the species tag (that'd be a herculean tagging project in itself). But we can still get the implications on the most popular digimon species tags (renamon, gatomon, guilmon, etc) to make it so fixing these small errors on lesser known digimon would be not that big of a task.