The tag implication #47366 leaked_pre-release_pokemon -> leaked_pre-release_content has been rejected.

Reason: Reason: To make a new tag leaked_content and make its meaning "unreleased content discovered through unauthorized means and/or before official info".

Here is the previous conversation between me and @Watsit：
(Already Rejected) Tag implication: leaked_pokemon -> spoiler

～～～～～～～～～
( https://e621.net/forum_topics/35989 ) I have rejected The "-> contents" one I made by mistake earlier.
Sorry to all the users who have voted.

～～～～～～～～～
While every tag requires some objective and determining threshold, the "spoiler" threshold could depend on each person.
But everything discovered illegally is still a leak.

Thus, I believe making a leaked_content tag is appropriate.

And the standard for it would be as follows：
"All contents that cannot be discovered, by those who are gathering info as fast as they can legally viewing official info, and without through any unauthorized ways".
(( Please respond if you have a better way to say it ))

Once either "official pre-release info" or "game releases in any country" has been done, the earlier of them will be the threshold.
And the contents will no longer be "leaked_content" at that point and then the tag should be removed immediately.

～～～～～～～～～
Of course, the content violates the Posting Unreleased Content rule,
But while in case it cannot be removed immediately, Users can avoid the disadvantage themselves by using their Blacklist.

～～～～～～～～～
Note that the tag spoiler will require disambiguation ... later.

EDIT: The tag implication leaked_pokemon -> leaked_content (forum #349338) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

Responding to the @Watsit's earlier comment here, since I will continue with this new imply.

watsit said:
Note also there's a distinction between leaked content, and speculative/rumored content (content which purports to be a leak from unofficial sources, but can't be verified as such).

I kinda doubt that.

If it's a Pokémon made by people/unofficial-sources' speculating or fantasy, then it should be a fan_character / fakemon since it's not an official creation ... no, this scenario doesn't matter, I guess.

If no one can provide legal proof the content is from an official source, It should be regarded as a leak.
No matter which unofficial source it is from, or whether they ““purport”” it to be ““speculative/rumored”” content.

I don't believe a clever unofficial source would let us verify what they are doing is a leak.

Also, while the goal may be to apply it to current leaked pokemon, I think the implication should wait. Scarlet/Violet's release is in a few days, and there's currently almost 300 leaked_pokemon posts. With the release imminent, the tags will need to be removed at that time, and it'll be that much harder to remove the extra leaked_contents tags if it'll be on non-Pokemon stuff too.

Once this tag is applied, it is hard to determine which character it is for except for solo, and it requires a lot of effort ... That's what you mean, for example, isn't it.

That's okay to wait for a while for this imply.
In the first place, I didn't expect approval will make it in time, and thought Nothing will happen for Gen 9.
I was too late.

But still, leaked_content never got made until now by us, so I thought it's better if we could some changes for the future.
This is just a strategic move for the 10th generation or another franchise.

Because ... I bet the future of e621, other sites, and artists will be the same as the current situation again, anyway :(

The tag implication leaked_pokemon -> leaked_content (forum #349338) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #7170 is active.

change category leaked_content (0) -> meta

Reason: This is definitely not a tyws tag, and it's placement on posts is ephemeral by design.

The main question is whether or not we want to keep leaked_pokemon and this tag. A tag which is meant to be removed once the content it is tagging is officially released feels slightly dubious and unlike any of our existing tags.

If they're going to be kept, I recommend a wiki for both tags

EDIT: The bulk update request #7170 (forum #396566) has been approved by @slyroon.

Should leaked_content also apply to leaked development content, such as these?

post #3470412 post #2599857 post #1407408 post #2231178

Even though this isn't spoiler content, it's still based on material that the public wasn't intended to see.

nimphia said:
Should leaked_content also apply to leaked development content, such as these?

post #3470412 post #2599857 post #1407408 post #2231178

Even though this isn't spoiler content, it's still based on material that the public wasn't intended to see.

Going by the spirit of what the creators of the tag aimed for, the answer would probably be no. But it is leaked content so it would be slightly odd to exclude it.

snpthecat said:
Going by the spirit of what the creators of the tag aimed for, the answer would probably be no. But it is leaked content so it would be slightly odd to exclude it.

It feels really weird to me to not include post #1407408 in a "leaked content" tag when it's a drawing based on leaked internal design documents, tbh.

How would it work for leaked content that is later officially published in some kind of documentary or something (e.g. unreleased beta yoshi designs)? Or leaked beta content that is later released (possibly with only slight adjustments)? How would this interact with beta content that isn't directly published by the company, but were shown off publicly in a trade show where someone else may or may not have legally captured some images or videos of it? I'm thinking of the various Nintendo gigaleaks that exposed lots of unpublished beta content, but there also existing old personal videos or magazine coverage of trade shows that showed off upcoming beta games (coverage that's not widely known, and we're losing over time, thereby making it harder to distinguish leaked content from early public beta showings as time goes on).

I can see the desire for a spoiler tag, to avoid content relating to recently published media that not everyone has had a realistic chance to get yet despite wanting to, though having problems relating to exactly what counts as a spoiler and when it stops being a spoiler when it once was. Images based on leaked content, however, I don't see a point to having an umbrella tag that applies regardless of context (be it a whole leaked character from a game that's decades old, or a known character's leaked beta design, a leaked species, a known species leaked beta design, or leaked stuff from a prerelease state that may or may not get released as-is later on.

I feel like this should only be applied to leaked pre-release content and we shouldn't be applying it to beta designs for released content and characters/content from canceled projects. if we want tags for those situations we can create tags for those situations.

The bulk update request #7289 is active.

remove implication leaked_pokemon (0) -> leaked_content (0)
create implication leaked_pre-release_pokemon (0) -> leaked_pre-release_content (0)
change category leaked_pre-release_content (0) -> meta
change category leaked_pre-release_pokemon (0) -> species

Reason: Followup:
alias leaked_pokemon -> leaked_pre-release_pokemon
alias leaked_content -> leaked_pre-release_content

Should we rename the tag to more explicitly refer to pre-release content and not leaked beta designs?

EDIT: The bulk update request #7289 (forum #397686) has been approved by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #7170 (forum #396566) has been approved by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #7289 (forum #397686) has been approved by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #7314 is active.

create alias leaked_pokemon (0) -> leaked_pre-release_pokemon (0)
create alias leaked_content (0) -> leaked_pre-release_content (0)

Reason: Followup (and time to probably equip them with wikis)

EDIT: The bulk update request #7314 (forum #397955) has been approved by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #7314 (forum #397955) has been approved by @slyroon.

We should probably make a development_content tag since we're not including it in this one. Could be more than just leaked development content anyways, and beta_pokemon_games could imply it