There's a lot of posts marked dragonite dragon. There are just as many that are considered mutually exclusive: dragonite -dragon.

So that begs the question: should dragonites be considered as dragons. And if so, what type?

Generally the consensus is that Pokemon should not be tagged alongside their real-world inspiration [no tagging boltund as a dog for example].

Dragonite, by its body shape, is a western_dragon. It has four legs, wings, and a tail. But it probably should not be tagged as a dragon, unless "dragon" is considered as vague as "canine" or "avian".
[consensus seems to be that "dragon" is a vague enough term for usage here, so yes you can tag a dragonite as a dragon.]

From the Pokemon_(species) wiki page:

Species tagging

Despite being called Pocket Monsters, most Pokémon do not look monstrous enough to be tagged as monster. Moreover, while Pokémon species may also be tagged with certain physical traits/classes, they should not also be tagged with the specific species of animal they are based on. So for example, the Pokémon Blaziken (see below), could be tagged with Avian since it has bird-like features such as talons, feathers, and a beak; but it should never also be tagged with Chicken.

moonlit-comet said:
Dragonite, by its body shape, is a western_dragon. It has four legs, wings, and a tail. But it probably should not be tagged as a dragon, unless "dragon" is considered as vague as "canine" or "avian".

Two legs, but yes, it is similar to a western_dragon (it kinda reminds me of elliot_(pete's_dragon) a bit). Dragon is sufficiently general to apply to pokemon, like feline and mustelid. Charizard is similarly considered a dragon and often tagged as such.

I really wish we could make appropriate implications to avoid these missing tags and resulting confusion. But alas.

pokemon should not be tagged real world species. additionally, dragon is not actually a species, but a family of smaller species like eastern_dragon, furred_dragon, and wyrm_(dragon). so dragonite, goodra, and etc. are fine to tag dragon so long as they look like one, just not slug, reptile (or so i heard, use scalie) and so on.

... Do we have past discussion threads as to why that's even the rule, or was that just yet another thing that was done with zero conversation to anyone by ImpidiDinkaDoo? Because it seems to fly pretty massively in the face of TWYS with zero tangible benefit (if you don't want to see X, it being a pokemon version of X makes it skip blacklists, with no recourse beyond carpet-blacklisting pokemon) that I am able to see.

ignore my previous message if you saw it, i just remembered the context it was in after looking for another forum post that may cite staff members saying to tag or not to tag RL species on pokémon.

for reference's sake: it's very specifically pokemon and digimon that are exempt from being tagged RL species, and the old reason was because although they may be called a wolf, they might not look like one / enough like one to warrant tagging it as wolf. lumping all the pokemon species into RL species would cause trouble for searching since that would be a lot of pokémon to -search in order to just get wolf, though maybe that's changed with the minor revamp with pokemon generation species tagging.

siral_exan said:
for reference's sake: it's very specifically pokemon and digimon that are exempt from being tagged RL species, and the old reason was because although they may be called a wolf, they might not look like one / enough like one to warrant tagging it as wolf. lumping all the pokemon species into RL species would cause trouble for searching since that would be a lot of pokémon to -search in order to just get wolf, though maybe that's changed with the minor revamp with pokemon generation species tagging.

IMO, it's understandable to not tag pokemon and such as specific species, like wolf, since they have clear visual differences and it would be extremely difficult to manage where the line is where it's "close enough" to tag as such. But we are allowed to tag higher taxonomic classes like avian or rodent for pokemon that are designed on those things since they're more general in how they can look.

votp said:
... Do we have past discussion threads as to why that's even the rule, or was that just yet another thing that was done with zero conversation to anyone by ImpidiDinkaDoo? Because it seems to fly pretty massively in the face of TWYS with zero tangible benefit (if you don't want to see X, it being a pokemon version of X makes it skip blacklists, with no recourse beyond carpet-blacklisting pokemon) that I am able to see.

this has been the policy before she even had an account. also how would admins even possibly create policies like that without discussion? policies aren't functions of the site they're functions of the users.

there were topics on the subject as far back as 2011 (topic #7989), with one of the first hard statements from the administration coming a few years later (forum #145237)

One solution I can see is to use a new tag like dragon_type_(pokemon) or something equivalent to that.

moonlit-comet said:
Generally the consensus is that Pokemon should not be tagged alongside their real-world inspiration

Well, the problem here is that there isn't one. Dragons come in all shapes and sizes, given that they are a purely fantasy invention of ours, so there is nothing written in stone as for how they are supposed to be represented, we even have furred dragons, that alone goes against the usual idea of dragons being scaly creatures.
Dragonite's design reminds me of those dragons from Dragon Tales, with chubby bodies and small wings relative to their bodies.

nunyabidness2 said:
One solution I can see is to use a new tag like dragon_type_(pokemon) or something equivalent to that.

the tag should then follow and pile other pokemon type tags so on (fire, water, grass, and more). we agreed to add generation_x_pokemon tags so there can be decision for this matter.
i'd say that egg groups are technically count as form of classification like reptiles (dragonite belongs to dragon egg group like charizard, sceptile, garchomp, etc), this can be alternative but debatable.

nunyabidness2 said:
One solution I can see is to use a new tag like dragon_type_(pokemon) or something equivalent to that.

Charizard can be tagged dragon despite not having the dragon type.

Applin is a dragon type, but is mostly tagged as a food creature or something like that.

Pokemon should not be tagged by type because it’s not going to help much. It’s TWYS, not tag something not visible.
I think tagging pokemon types should be reserved to when a pokemon character’s type or movepool is actually shown in the artwork.
See:
post #3168765
post #3625883

The original, on-model look of Dragonite looks like a dragon and therefore should be tagged as one. It’s even got Dragon in it’s name.

snake-girl said:
the tag should then follow and pile other pokemon type tags so on (fire, water, grass, and more). we agreed to add generation_x_pokemon tags so there can be decision for this matter.
i'd say that egg groups are technically count as form of classification like reptiles (dragonite belongs to dragon egg group like charizard, sceptile, garchomp, etc), this can be alternative but debatable.

pokémon typing tags would be a lot of tag bloat and would very rarely be useful.

the thing with a pokémon's gen is that it's totally immutable, a pokémon who was originally featured in a gen 3 game will always be a generation_3_pokemon no matter what. typing isn't. pokémon gain or swap typings all over the place, magnemite and magneton gained Steel in gen 2, all rotom forms were Electric/Ghost in Plat, and when fairy type was added a bunch of pokémon gained that typing and a several lost their normal type.

should we tag all clefairy posts as fairy type? should we base it on when the piece was created? or maybe we should try to divine whether the post is intended to exist in a pre- or post-gen 6 universe.

and how would we handle stuff like the FireFightDex Project?

sipothac said:
pokémon typing tags would be a lot of tag bloat and would very rarely be useful.

the thing with a pokémon's gen is that it's totally immutable, a pokémon who was originally featured in a gen 3 game will always be a generation_3_pokemon no matter what. typing isn't. pokémon gain or swap typings all over the place, magnemite and magneton gained Steel in gen 2, all rotom forms were Electric/Ghost in Plat, and when fairy type was added a bunch of pokémon gained that typing and a several lost their normal type.

should we tag all clefairy posts as fairy type? should we base it on when the piece was created? or maybe we should try to divine whether the post is intended to exist in a pre- or post-gen 6 universe.

and how would we handle stuff like the FireFightDex Project?

Types change, yeah. Also, there's a Bulbapedia for this. In general, if it can be automated and isn't an implication, it's probably not worth tagging. Looking for a fire type pokemon on AGN.PH like that is kind of annoying, though.

I understand the concerns about tag bloat and changing Pokémon typings. However creating type-specific tags like "dragon_type_(pokemon)" makes sense due to the visual consistency among dragon types and the need to avoid ambiguity in tagging, which is what we're seeing right now. Plus, any changes in the future to pokemon typing can be done with a single BUR.

Speaking of BURs, I've been working on a BUR to do just this, but since the BUR system is hardcoded to 25 lines, it'll be impossible to do in one go without the servers exploding. Here's an excerpt, but trust me, it goes on and on and on and on and on...

There's like a thousand different pokemon dude, idc what the pokerap told you. Also I'll freely admit that this is the best use of ChatGPT I've done in a while, because no fucking way am I sitting on my arse and typing each bloody entry by hand. I'll verify the species of pokemon for consistency with the tags in the next few days and make a BUR thread for them all, soonish. But holy shit bro...

nunyabidness2 said:
I understand the concerns about tag bloat and changing Pokémon typings. However creating type-specific tags like "dragon_type_(pokemon)" makes sense due to the visual consistency among dragon types and the need to avoid ambiguity in tagging, which is what we're seeing right now. Plus, any changes in the future to pokemon typing can be done with a single BUR.

Speaking of BURs, I've been working on a BUR to do just this, but since the BUR system is hardcoded to 25 lines, it'll be impossible to do in one go without the servers exploding. Here's an excerpt, but trust me, it goes on and on and on and on and on...

imply abomasnow -> grass_type_pokemon imply abomasnow -> ice_type_pokemon imply abra -> psychic_type_pokemon imply absol -> dark_type_pokemon imply accelgor -> bug_type_pokemon imply aegislash -> steel_type_pokemon imply aegislash -> ghost_type_pokemon imply aerodactyl -> rock_type_pokemon imply aerodactyl -> flying_type_pokemon imply aggron -> steel_type_pokemon imply aggron -> rock_type_pokemon imply aipom -> normal_type_pokemon imply alakazam -> psychic_type_pokemon imply alcremie -> fairy_type_pokemon imply alomomola -> water_type_pokemon imply altaria -> dragon_type_pokemon imply altaria -> flying_type_pokemon imply amaura -> rock_type_pokemon imply amaura -> ice_type_pokemon imply ambipom -> normal_type_pokemon imply amoonguss -> grass_type_pokemon imply amoonguss -> poison_type_pokemon imply ampharos -> electric_type_pokemon imply annihilape -> fighting_type_pokemon imply annihilape -> ghost_type_pokemon imply anorith -> rock_type_pokemon imply anorith -> bug_type_pokemon imply appletun -> grass_type_pokemon imply appletun -> dragon_type_pokemon imply applin -> grass_type_pokemon imply applin -> dragon_type_pokemon imply araquanid -> water_type_pokemon imply araquanid -> bug_type_pokemon imply arbok -> poison_type_pokemon imply arboliva -> grass_type_pokemon

we're not going to tag pokémon types, if we were we certainly would not imply specific pokémon to types, because, as I said above, typing is not an immitable trait. the addition of dark, steel, and fairy, terastallization.

and, again I say, FireFight Dex.

sipothac said:
we're not going to tag pokémon types, if we were we certainly would not imply specific pokémon to types, because, as I said above, typing is not an immitable trait. the addition of dark, steel, and fairy, terastallization.

and, again I say, FireFight Dex.

When the hell did they add that as a game mechanic? Well that's thrown THAT plan out of the water

nunyabidness2 said:
I understand the concerns about tag bloat and changing Pokémon typings. However creating type-specific tags like "dragon_type_(pokemon)" makes sense due to the visual consistency among dragon types and the need to avoid ambiguity in tagging, which is what we're seeing right now. Plus, any changes in the future to pokemon typing can be done with a single BUR.

Speaking of BURs, I've been working on a BUR to do just this, but since the BUR system is hardcoded to 25 lines, it'll be impossible to do in one go without the servers exploding. Here's an excerpt, but trust me, it goes on and on and on and on and on...

imply abomasnow -> grass_type_pokemon imply abomasnow -> ice_type_pokemon imply abra -> psychic_type_pokemon imply absol -> dark_type_pokemon imply accelgor -> bug_type_pokemon imply aegislash -> steel_type_pokemon imply aegislash -> ghost_type_pokemon imply aerodactyl -> rock_type_pokemon imply aerodactyl -> flying_type_pokemon imply aggron -> steel_type_pokemon imply aggron -> rock_type_pokemon imply aipom -> normal_type_pokemon imply alakazam -> psychic_type_pokemon imply alcremie -> fairy_type_pokemon imply alomomola -> water_type_pokemon imply altaria -> dragon_type_pokemon imply altaria -> flying_type_pokemon imply amaura -> rock_type_pokemon imply amaura -> ice_type_pokemon imply ambipom -> normal_type_pokemon imply amoonguss -> grass_type_pokemon imply amoonguss -> poison_type_pokemon imply ampharos -> electric_type_pokemon imply annihilape -> fighting_type_pokemon imply annihilape -> ghost_type_pokemon imply anorith -> rock_type_pokemon imply anorith -> bug_type_pokemon imply appletun -> grass_type_pokemon imply appletun -> dragon_type_pokemon imply applin -> grass_type_pokemon imply applin -> dragon_type_pokemon imply araquanid -> water_type_pokemon imply araquanid -> bug_type_pokemon imply arbok -> poison_type_pokemon imply arboliva -> grass_type_pokemon

Pokemon can be drawn as different types

cloudpie said:
Pokemon can be drawn as different types

Types aren't a visible trait. The design may be influenced by the type, but the two don't always align (see: Charizard isn't a dragon type despite looking like a dragon, lugia isn't a water type despite looking like a sea creature). But that's why it's not useful to tag, either: the type has no bearing on the visual elements of the post, and the site isn't aiming to be an info center for pokemon, making type tags unnecessary.

watsit said:
Types aren't a visible trait. The design may be influenced by the type, but the two don't always align (see: Charizard isn't a dragon type despite looking like a dragon, lugia isn't a water type despite looking like a sea creature). But that's why it's not useful to tag, either: it has no bearing on the visual elements of the post.

also stuff like scovillain which is only fire type because it's head is a hot pepper and has nothing to do with actual fire, and decidueye that's ghost type because ???.

edit: and in regards to dragon-types, specifically: altaria, goomy, applin, dipplin, vibrava, tatsugiri, zygarde_10_form, and at least some others that are questionable if they look vaguely like dragons because they're dinosaurs or something.

votp said:
... Do we have past discussion threads as to why that's even the rule, or was that just yet another thing that was done with zero conversation to anyone by ImpidiDinkaDoo? Because it seems to fly pretty massively in the face of TWYS with zero tangible benefit (if you don't want to see X, it being a pokemon version of X makes it skip blacklists, with no recourse beyond carpet-blacklisting pokemon) that I am able to see.

The opposite problem can occur where somebody searches for leopards, but persian shows up on the search. Pokemon can be excluded from the search query, but I see that as being relatively redundant and thus annoying to most folks.

If anybody wanna blacklist the cat pokemons, they can use that felid pokemon annd if there are any cat pokemon they like, they can exclude them from the blacklist felid pokemon -meowth.