Despite the prevalence of its subject matter, I had somehow never noticed this tag before it attained a princely 808 posts. (As usual, this isn't as mysterious as it seems - checking the logs confirms that one user nearly doubled its size in the last fortnight, although it existed before then.)

It does arguably have a blacklisting use, since the ostensible purpose of fan_character (before it got polluted beyond all meaning) was to enable people to filter out the torrent of self-inserts when looking for porny fanart. This tag specifically indicates that the fan and canon characters are interacting sexually, instead of simply existing near each other, although I'm not entirely convinced that the sort of people who hate fan characters would be happy to see either scenario.

But it definitely needs to be aliased to something, since *_x_* tags are totally nonstandard on e621 and both canon and oc have been invalidated and aliased respectively. Do people think this still needs to exist, or should it just be merged into fan_character as soon as that gets cleaned up?

I think this is a reasonable tag, but agree that it needs a name that fits more within our tag naming standards. Lots of people are uninterested in seeing people's Mary Sue characters being paired with canon characters (especially if it's their waifu) and would want to blacklist it, but wouldn't necessarily not want to see a fan character by itself.

For some less-likely reason people might also be interested in canon x oc relationships and want to search for it too? No idea about that one tbh.

+1 to keeping the tag. As for tag names... our standard is usually "x_on_y", so canon_on_oc? I'm not sure there's any better options

Bumping because this thread was brought up elsewhere. I wholeheartedly think we should keep this tag, for the reasons faucet outlined (I've certainly added it to posts for blacklisting purposes before) but I agree that if we're phasing out "canon" and "oc" then yeah, maybe the name should be changed. I have little idea what else you could reasonably/succinctly call this though. It's worth noting that this tag also gets used for romantic stuff, not just sexual.

Maybe something like "official_character/fan_character"? The word "official" instead of "canon," to match up with something like the tag "official_art"? Would it then have to be a lore tag?

If we change the name for this, would we have to change the name of the tag canon_couple as well? "official_couple"?

Can't propose this yet because of the current alias request, but here's a possible solution:

alias canon_x_oc -> lore:official_character/fan_character_(lore)
alias canon_couple -> lore:official_couple_(lore)

+1 for keeping this tag (and probably canon_couple too) around in some form, they're useful descriptors.

I like the name official_couple, but am not sure about official_character/fan_character. I believe original_character should never have been aliased to fan_character since, especially here in the furry fandom, OC very often means a character completely unrelated to any copyright. I think it should have been invalidated instead since it really does not mean the same thing as fan_character. Anyway, since fan_character is supposed to mean specifically an OC related to a franchise like a pony OC or pokemon OC, I don't think it's appropriate to be in this tag name since this tag is supposed to be for any kind of OC (including someone's fursona) with a canon character. Right?
official_character/original_character_(lore)?

...I don't think it's appropriate to be in this tag name since this tag is supposed to be for any kind of OC (including someone's fursona) with a canon character. Right?
official_character/original_character_(lore)?

That's perfectly fine with me.

So then:

alias canon_x_oc -> lore:official_character/original_character_(lore)
alias canon_couple -> lore:official_couple_(lore)

The problem I see with canon/official_couple is that characters and relationships change over time, and it's unclear what it's based on. Whether the characters are a couple "now", or were a couple when the image was made (irrespective of the artist being aware), or were intended to be a couple by the artist? Lore tags are for artist intent of a particular image, so putting "canon" stuff there that can contradict the artist's intent doesn't seem right.

Two characters can start out strangers or friends, then later hook up and become a couple, then any time later break up and no longer be a couple. Or a character can be introduced into a series and become a couple with some other series staple character, then be retconned out or silently removed from the series and never spoken of again, leaving such relationships in limbo. Series with more dynamic/changing characters that get more popular, and a creator that isn't very clear or forthcoming with official canon, I suspect will run into a lot of canon wars.

It also seems unnecessarily limiting. What about characters that are in a polycule?

is extremely wordy to me, and Original Character is something I prefer to avoid since it's an ambiguous contronym. Perhaps something like fan_relationship would be better, and also cover family and romantic relationships with a fan character.

cloudpie said:
+1 for keeping this tag (and probably canon_couple too) around in some form, they're useful descriptors.

I like the name official_couple, but am not sure about official_character/fan_character. I believe original_character should never have been aliased to fan_character since, especially here in the furry fandom, OC very often means a character completely unrelated to any copyright. I think it should have been invalidated instead since it really does not mean the same thing as fan_character. Anyway, since fan_character is supposed to mean specifically an OC related to a franchise like a pony OC or pokemon OC, I don't think it's appropriate to be in this tag name since this tag is supposed to be for any kind of OC (including someone's fursona) with a canon character. Right?
official_character/original_character_(lore)?

I guess I'm in this camp. It makes sense to keep them, but fan_character versus original_character is a mess that has been around for a long time.

Mentioning canon pairings, this topic is bound to attract the attention of someone like Be Sure To Actually Read AKA Ack. XD

watsit said:
official_character/original_character_(lore) is extremely wordy to me, and Original Character is something I prefer to avoid since it's an ambiguous contronym. Perhaps something like fan_relationship would be better, and also cover family and romantic relationships with a fan character.

Wait, but I thought that annoyance over what other sites quality as "OCs" being mistagged as "fan characters" was part of what caused the earlier discussion. Unless we mean "fan" as in a broader sense, as in "a fan of the work is drawing this."

My worry is that fan_relationship is too close to fan_character, and that there would be confusion over it being tagged on pics where fan_character wouldn't fit, like someone drawing their fursona with a franchise character.

smbsml said:
Wait, but I thought that annoyance over what other sites quality as "OCs" being mistagged as "fan characters" was part of what caused the earlier discussion.

The problem with "OC" or "Original Character" is that it means both a character that is an original creation with no ties to someone else's work, and a fan-made character derived from and tied to someone else's work, depending on who you ask. The current oc -> fan_character alias is a problem because it doesn't take into account the former meaning that some people use, but the latter is still a valid meaning other people use too. Without more information, "original character" effectively just means "a character", who can be an official part of some series themself.

Canon also gets a bit complicated when there are worlds within worlds. Wanderlust, for example, is a fan-work that takes place in a Pokemon Mystery Dungeon-like universe, it's characters are fan characters of the Pokemon series. But Wanderlust has its own canon too, there are characters that are official/canon to the Wanderlust setting. Misu Nox, for example, is an official/canon Wanderlust character and a fan/non-canon Pokemon character. People can make fan characters of Wanderlust, fan works of fan works, pairings of which have the same canon_x_oc energy as any other setting.

smbsml said:
My worry is that fan_relationship is too close to fan_character, and that there would be confusion over it being tagged on pics where fan_character wouldn't fit, like someone drawing their fursona with a franchise character..

Yeah, it may not be the best term. It could also be interpreted as a fan ship of two canon characters. But I'm having trouble coming up with a term that doesn't run into problems of canon and "OCs".

For what it's worth, I don't think it's necessary to turn it into a lore tag. Even aside from the fact that you very much can see whether a character appeared in the source material or not, all characters are TWYK anyway.

watsit said:
The problem I see with canon/official_couple is that characters and relationships change over time, and it's unclear what it's based on. Whether the characters are a couple "now", or were a couple when the image was made (irrespective of the artist being aware), or were intended to be a couple by the artist? Lore tags are for artist intent of a particular image, so putting "canon" stuff there that can contradict the artist's intent doesn't seem right.

Two characters can start out strangers or friends, then later hook up and become a couple, then any time later break up and no longer be a couple. Or a character can be introduced into a series and become a couple with some other series staple character, then be retconned out or silently removed from the series and never spoken of again, leaving such relationships in limbo. Series with more dynamic/changing characters that get more popular, and a creator that isn't very clear or forthcoming with official canon, I suspect will run into a lot of canon wars.

My interpretation was that canon_couple was for if the characters were ever explicitly stated/shown to be in a romantic relationship in official franchise material. So if they break up or are retconned, that wouldn't matter, as long as the two characters were explicitly shown to be together at some point. Maybe others disagree though.

As for characters in the image not necessarily intended to be a couple by the artist but in canon they are: I agree that maybe a lore tag is not the best option.

cloudpie said:
My interpretation was that canon_couple was for if the characters were ever explicitly stated/shown to be in a romantic relationship in official franchise material. So if they break up or are retconned, that wouldn't matter, as long as the two characters were explicitly shown to be together at some point. Maybe others disagree though.

As for characters in the image not necessarily intended to be a couple by the artist but in canon they are: I agree that maybe a lore tag is not the best option.

I just assumed those two examples I posted were NSFW/SFW versions of the same idea? Like, SonicXAmy, SonicXSally are both canon pairings, and you can apply the "if they have kids" rule to determine if it's a couple, following that chain of reasoning. BTW, talk about retconning, haha.

alphamule said:
I just assumed those two examples I posted were NSFW/SFW versions of the same idea? Like, SonicXAmy, SonicXSally are both canon pairings, and you can apply the "if they have kids" rule to determine if it's a couple, following that chain of reasoning. BTW, talk about retconning, haha.

Wdym if they have kids? Both are canon couples and would get this tag

cloudpie said:
Wdym if they have kids? Both are canon couples and would get this tag

Yeah, but it's offscreen sex... Only canon by implication. ;)

Personally, I don't think anything needs to be done to the tag, other than having more posts tagged under it. There might be "consistency" issues with the tag name, but canon_x_oc is the least vague and most widely and easily understood way of describing the concept, without making the tag name clunky.

I went ahead over the past day or so and tagged a number of posts, and expanded on the canon x oc page, the tagging standards I added seem uncontroversial and common sense.

wat8548 said:
For what it's worth, I don't think it's necessary to turn it into a lore tag. Even aside from the fact that you very much can see whether a character appeared in the source material or not, all characters are TWYK anyway.

Although all characters are TWYK, canon_x_oc and canon_couple are in the general category, and I believe that things in the general category should be TWYS. So to keep it consistent, it should be moved somewhere else. The most obvious location is the lore category but character could also work too.

Honestly it is a tag that is necessary and has not been used as it should really have been.

This tag should have well over 15k posts under its belt for sure...but the posts aren't getting tagged man! They just ain't getting the damn tag!
tsk tsk tsk
the ants of e621 need to do some house keeping
and I'm not gonna be the ant to do it. My OCD isn't that powerful to compel me

closetpossum said:
Honestly it is a tag that is necessary and has not been used as it should really have been.

This tag should have well over 15k posts under its belt for sure...but the posts aren't getting tagged man! They just ain't getting the damn tag!
tsk tsk tsk
the ants of e621 need to do some house keeping
and I'm not gonna be the ant to do it. My OCD isn't that powerful to compel me

Already got suckered into the Shota-conventionproject myself!

alphamule said:
Already got suckered into the Shota-conventionproject myself!

The WHAT!?

benjiboyo said:
The WHAT!?

Well, in theory, if decisions ever get made, we'll have this huge project for the shota/loli tags, but meh. Still waiting on some other stuff to go through, to make it doable.