The tag implication #38389 golden_brooch -> fan_character has been rejected.

Reason: Fan MLP character, with enough uploads that manually tagging them with FC would be somewhat less than practical.

EDIT: The tag implication golden_brooch -> fan_character (forum #306826) has been rejected by @Millcore.

I don't know how I feel about adding a fan_character implication to a character tag.
There is some precedent for it, but that would mean all other non-canon characters would need an implication like this. And there are so many of them that I don't think this is practical.

I added fan_character to golden_brooch posts that were lacking it, though.

bitwolfy said:
There is some precedent for it, but that would mean all other non-canon characters would need an implication like this. And there are so many of them that I don't think this is practical.

Wouldn't that mean the fan_character tag itself should be invalidated? As it's defined, fan_character should be tagged on any "character that is based off of a franchise, series, or other copyright but is not a canon character", but if there's too many non-canon characters for the tag to be practical, that would indicate it's too broad of a tag to be used.

Personally I'd be in favor of invalidating it. Basically any drawing with a pokemon (as well as trainers), or an MLP character, or a Guild Wars character, or an Elder Scrolls character, or what-have-you that is based on but hasn't appeared in official material, is a fan character. Even a one-off character is still a character, after all (and they can always become a recurring character, sometimes unexpectedly). It does seem a bit pointless, at least for franchises where a good 90+% of posts have a character that has no indication of being from official material despite being derived from the franchise. Further, what about a character that was created based off of a franchise, but later expanded out to not always be part of it (such as Ethan, who started out as a lucario, but got alternate non-lucario depictions later on while still appearing as a lucario )? Is he still technically "based on" it because it was part of his initial creation, even if there were some non-permanent changes later? Or is he only a fan character when he looks like a lucario?

Also, where is the line between being a fan character and an official character? Like Victory Fire, which takes a bunch of canon pokemon characters and puts them into a new story together adding their own interpretation to the world(s) and characters (some of which are from different canons of the franchise, that the creator's own head-canon tries to tie together), and sometimes the character changing to the point where they're not recognizable as the canon character they're based on (such as Gengar, who's supposed to be the same Gengar character from PMD1, but through the power of plot and character development, acts in a way that is near unrecognizable to their canon counterpart; or Darkrai, who is both the same character from PMD2 and Pokemon Ranger, despite them not being the same canonically, and having a drastically different personality as a result of what happened in those games). Or like Valsalia's Lusty Argonian Maid'd, which takes Lifts-Her-Tail (an official Elder Scrolls character within a fictional short story in the games) and the Dragonborn (an official canon character who is also a blank slate for the player to fill in) and certain other characters, and brings them to life in their own special way, taking many liberties with who they are and their behaviors. Are these still official non-fan characters, or are they different enough to be considered fan-created?

All these questions make me feel like the tag at least needs to be heavily revised, as various species of Pokemon, Digimon, MLP, Argonian, Khajiit, Charr, and perhaps even things like Sergal and Avali, would make any character "based on a franchise or series" regardless of anything else. It could be a creator's own story in their own world with their own abilities and personality, but because a character is an braixen instead of a fox, it's considered a non-canon fan character. I'd think the character would at least need to be depicted in someone else's canon world or setting to be considered a non-canon fan character. But even that feels too vague (would their own story in a non-canon interpretation of a setting make it a fan character still?).

Golden brooch sounds a little too vague. That could easily apply to the jewelry as well, couldn't it? Aside from that, the implication sounds good.

furrin_gok said:
Golden brooch sounds a little too vague. That could easily apply to the jewelry as well, couldn't it? Aside from that, the implication sounds good.

Agreed. I'd argue that the character should be tagged as golden_brooch_(mlp) in a similar manner as other MLP characters are tagged (or so I thought).

The tag implication golden_brooch -> fan_character (forum #306826) has been rejected by @Millcore.

The bulk update request #5389 is active.

create implication fluffle_puff (398) -> fan_character (129633)
create implication littlepip (391) -> fan_character (129633)
create implication blackjack_(fallout_equestria) (135) -> fan_character (129633)
create implication velvet_remedy (97) -> fan_character (129633)
create implication homage_(fallout_equestria) (37) -> fan_character (129633)
create implication calamity_(fallout_equestria) (73) -> fan_character (129633)

Reason: Rainbow Dash approved this implication in May so... I guess implications to fan_character are okay now?

Otherwise, the golden_brooch and silver_draw implications should be removed again.

EDIT: The bulk update request #5389 (forum #374107) has been approved by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #5390 has been rejected.

remove implication golden_brooch (220) -> fan_character (129633)
remove implication golden_brooch (220) -> my_little_pony (312672)
remove implication silver_draw (75) -> fan_character (129633)
remove implication silver_draw (75) -> my_little_pony (312672)
mass update golden_brooch -> golden_brooch_(an-tonio)

Reason: Alternative BUR, to remove the golden_brooch and silver_draw -> fan_character implications. Also having them unimply MLP, but that can be changed if needed.
Also updating golden_brooch -> golden_brooch_(an-tonio) because "golden_brooch" could mean an actual golden brooch, as mentioned above in the thread. An-tonio is the character's owner.

EDIT: The bulk update request #5390 (forum #374108) has been rejected by @slyroon.

cloudpie said:
Reason: Rainbow Dash approved this implication in May so... I guess implications to fan_character are okay now?

Otherwise, the golden_brooch and silver_draw implications should be removed again.

A bunch of such implications were removed previously, and I still hold to my reasoning. Fan characters can be depicted outside of the setting they were originally made as a fan of, and with alternate_species and related things, can be depicted in a way that they're not a fan character. Some characters have also changed from being a fan character to a normal non-fan character.

cloudpie said:
Reason: Alternative BUR, to remove the golden_brooch and silver_draw -> fan_character implications. Should they unimply MLP as well? Are fan characters allowed to imply copyrights?

I'd say they shouldn't imply copyrights. If someone makes a drawing of tinsel_(wanderlust) as a normal-looking penguin in the arctic, for example, it shouldn't be tagged pokemon as it wouldn't depict anything from pokemon.

watsit said:
I'd say they shouldn't imply copyrights. If someone makes a drawing of tinsel_(wanderlust) as a normal-looking penguin in the arctic, for example, it shouldn't be tagged pokemon as it wouldn't depict anything from pokemon.

I agree tbh. Editing the BUR

cloudpie said:
The bulk update request #5390 has been rejected.

remove implication golden_brooch (220) -> fan_character (129633)
remove implication golden_brooch (220) -> my_little_pony (312672)
remove implication silver_draw (75) -> fan_character (129633)
remove implication silver_draw (75) -> my_little_pony (312672)
mass update golden_brooch -> golden_brooch_(an-tonio)

Wait, why mass update instead of just aliasing it? Yeah there's the problem with it being confused with the object, but there's not really any tags in the form color_brooch

snpthecat said:
Wait, why mass update instead of just aliasing it? Yeah there's the problem with it being confused with the object, but there's not really any tags in the form color_brooch

I've been told before never to alias something to a suffixed version, because if it can be aliased that way, then it shouldn't have a suffix in the first place

The bulk update request #5389 (forum #374107) has been approved by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #5390 (forum #374108) has been rejected by @slyroon.