Implicating Raichu → Mouse
Link to implication

Reason:

Raichu is an electric-mouse type Pokemon. Even the e621 definition of the tag states this, also I filled it out backwards. My bad.

I'd say that's a bad implication.
Implicating Raichu -> Rodent would be far better.

I can't find the forum post, but I think that it was pointed out that we don't really tag Pokemon based off their 'real world' counterpart species, just their Pokemon species.

Edit, ah found it. https://e621.net/forum/show/139306

Tokaido said:
I can't find the forum post, but I think that it was pointed out that we don't really tag Pokemon based off their 'real world' counterpart species.

Here you go

The verdict was "It looks like a Pokemon, we should implicate it to that."

Yeah, Pokemon already have a species. Just because they resemble some real animal, doesn't mean that they should be tagged as one. There's no benefit from overtagging species, it only makes interspecies searches harder.

And in this case, raichu doesn't even really look like a mouse. Peekaboo's suggestion is much better, though I think it'd be best to leave it unimplicated.

Genjar said:
though I think it'd be best to leave it unimplicated.

Agreed, tho isn't there other Pokemon types that have been implicated to different species? I'm fairly certain arcanine or one other similar Pokemon have been implicated to canine.

implying raichu to any irl animals is dumb because raichu is not clearly any irl animal so it can be drawn in many different ways. there could be a realistic drawing of raichu that is clearly based on rabbit. there could be another drawing where its clearly based on cat. and third drawing where its based on mouse.

@Peekaboo
mightyena implies hyena. While I really think that mightyena -> hyena is bad implication (While mightyena might be inspired by hyena it really doesn't look like one of them) I'm not sure whether, for example, raichu should imply rodent or not. I think that people searching for a rodent would not complain about it.

Mutisija said:
there could be another drawing where its clearly based on cat

The question is whether it's still a raichu or just cat colored like raichu or cat/raichu hybrid. Raichu is a species tag and should behave like other species tags. Replace raichu with fox - does it make sense to tag fox based on cat to be tagged as a fox?

Peekaboo said:
Agreed, tho isn't there other Pokemon types that have been implicated to different species? I'm fairly certain arcanine or one other similar Pokemon have been implicated to canine.

Yes, there's a few existing implications.
Here's the ones that I can remember:

• Fennekin & braixen → fennec
• Rattata → rat
• Arcanine → canine
• Ninetales → fox

Oh yeah, and the mightyena → hyena. I think we could do without those, though some seem to work relatively well. Especially that arcanine implication.

Edit: I almost forgot about hybrids and fakemon. Thanks to the implications, images such as this end up tagged with mismatched species:
post #450741
Doesn't look like a fennec, fox, or even mammal to me.

Denied: because it's been decided that implicating pokemon to other species isn't a good idea. They are their own species. Despite often being inspired by real life species, or a mix of them, the resemblance isn't always very strong. Even when a feral version is similar enough to another real life species, implicating them would cause tagging problems whenever a pokemon was being drawn as a different species or as a human. Pokemon tags are also unique from most other species tags, because they are both a name and a species.

Now, the wikis for them can include a link to the pokemon or real life species that's similar-ish in the "see also" section, as a related tag. But we've found that creating actual implications between them and a real life species that's sorta-similar just doesn't work very well in practice because pokemon tags just function a little differently to other species tags. The few that have been tried in the past will be UNimplicated soon because of all the aforementioned problems.

furrypickle said:
Denied: because it's been decided that implicating pokemon to other species isn't a good idea. They are their own species. Despite often being inspired by real life species, or a mix of them, the resemblance isn't always very strong. Even when a feral version is similar enough to another real life species, implicating them would cause tagging problems whenever a pokemon was being drawn as a different species or as a human. Pokemon tags are also unique from most other species tags, because they are both a name and a species.

Now, the wikis for them can include a link to the pokemon or real life species that's similar-ish in the "see also" section, as a related tag. But we've found that creating actual implications between them and a real life species that's sorta-similar just doesn't work very well in practice because pokemon tags just function a little differently to other species tags. The few that have been tried in the past will be UNimplicated soon because of all the aforementioned problems.

Alright, understood. Thanks.