You can draw most of these in a way that looks adult, which would conflict with such a tag. So I don't think thats a good tag to add.
Topic: Child/Baby species
Posted under General
honestly, this is part of the reason we shouldn't have gotten rid of baby_pokemon.
I hate to tell you this on the Digimon front, given this wasn't the point you were hoping to make, but the first four Digimon evos are
Baby 1 > Baby 2 > Child > Adult
If we're going to go off names alone, all Renamon, Guilmon, Lopmon, Patamon, Biyomon, Gabumon, and DORUmon posts would need to be tagged as young. The stages of Digimon do not correlate to physical age (it's possible to have an Ultimate, a sixth stage, that's seconds old, or a Baby 1 thats been in that state since the ENIAC computer was built), nor developmental status as they are capable of being reverted to earlier levels through damage or energy loss. It also does not correlate to physical appearances as most Baby 1/2 forms are slime blobs, with some being such novel things as black powder bombs or heat-seeking missiles.
akronymus said:
You can draw most of these in a way that looks adult, which would conflict with such a tag. So I don't think thats a good tag to add.
That’s exactly why I think the tag is a good idea. Some people tag adult-looking baby pokemon as cub/young because we don’t have a child_(lore) tag.
Where a pokemon is in its evolution line does not imply its age, there were elderly treeko in the show. I don't need people essentially tagging my sprigatito character with child_(lore) on a clearly adult character
ohheklenu said:
Where a pokemon is in its evolution line does not imply its age, there were elderly treeko in the show. I don't need people essentially tagging my sprigatito character with child_(lore) on a clearly adult character
treeko's not a baby pokémon.
baby pokémon are pokémon that are unable to breed until after they evolve at which point all evolution stages are able to. they're essentially canonically prepubescent pokémon.
sipothac said:
treeko's not a baby pokémon.baby pokémon are pokemon that are pokémon that are unable to breed until after they evolve at which point all evolution stages are able to. they're essentially canonically prepubescent pokémon.
Its more I'd argue the existence of an old first stage evolution plus the existence of the everstone which keeps pokemon at their evolution stage means that evolution clearly =/= age
ohheklenu said:
Its more I'd argue the existence of an old first stage evolution plus the existence of the everstone which keeps pokemon at their evolution stage means that evolution clearly =/= age
https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Baby_Pok%C3%A9mon
it's a canon concept
sipothac said:
https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Baby_Pok%C3%A9monit's a canon concept
But its also a canon concept that pokemon age, my point. If you give a riolu an everstone and wait 20 years thats an adult riolu
dimoretpinel said:
There are entire species that are canonically young. I suggest we make a tag for them? Some posts might be mistakenly tagged young because the character’s species is canonically children.
What would the tag be? baby_pokemon was aliased away because it created a false impression of a character being young. People rightly got upset at their art being tagged baby_pokemon when all the characters were depicted fully grown up, and people would tag baby_pokemon on any young pokemon (not just those classified as baby_pokemon in the series) thinking it meant baby+pokemon.
dimoretpinel said:
because we don’t have a child_(lore) tag.
cloudpie said:
Young_(lore)
I mean we do have that but also that's based on artist intention and not the actual canonical designation of the pokémon so, baby pokémon that are tagged young but the artist says they're adults couldn't be both young_(lore) and adult_(lore). and we can't necessarily use aged_up pichu because aged_up is based on the "taggable" age rather than the (lore) status.
also, I'm not a huge fan that, in order to actually blacklist or search every pokémon designated "baby", a user would need to use each of the ninteen tags individually.
sipothac said:
I mean we do have that but also that's based on artist intention and not the actual canonical designation of the pokémon
Aside from legendary_pokemon (and shadow_pokemon I guess), we don't tag pokemon designations. We don't tag "baby pokemon" just as we don't tag "bird pokemon". If a pokemon looks like a bird, it's tagged avian, and if a pokemon looks young, it's tagged young. If someone doesn't want to see specific pokemon regardless of what they look like, they will need to blacklist those specific pokemon. The alternative is to add back a designation tag that only caused complaints by people not wanting clearly adult-looking pokemon to be tagged "baby <anything>", and confusion from taggers thinking it applied to any pokemon that is a baby.
sipothac said:
I mean we do have that but also that's based on artist intention and not the actual canonical designation of the pokémon so, baby pokémon that are tagged young but the artist says they're adults couldn't be both young_(lore) and adult_(lore). and we can't necessarily use aged_up pichu because aged_up is based on the "taggable" age rather than the (lore) status.also, I'm not a huge fan that, in order to actually blacklist or search every pokémon designated "baby", a user would need to use each of the ninteen tags individually.
Oh true, I misunderstood. You're right it would be really nice to have an umbrella tag for those pokemon - I totally understand why artists wouldn't want the word "baby" on it though and the confusion that causes. I there was a better name but I can't think of anything :P
Maybe a child_species tag? Because not only pokemon has canonically child species.
Feirune is a canonically child species as a wrym, before she evolves into a light dragon.
dimoretpinel said:
Maybe a child_species tag? Because not only pokemon has canonically child species.
People won't like their clearly adult and not at all young characters being tagged child_*, just as they weren't happy with them being tagged baby_*. I wager there would be plenty of people that tag it on children of any species, not just specific listed ones.
watsit said:
Aside from legendary_pokemon (and shadow_pokemon I guess), we don't tag pokemon designations.
also mega_evolution, and eeveelution, and fossil_pokemon, and ultra_beast, and future_pokemon and ancient_pokemon which imply paradox_pokemon. those are the ones I can think of off hand, there's probably a few others I forgot.
baby_pokemon is pretty much the only designation we don't have a tag for.
edit: gigantamax_pokemon, regional_form and its subtags, shiny_pokemon, and glitch_pokemon... and I think that's everything. we also aliased mythical_pokemon away because, like, fair; that category dosn't actually say anything _about_ the pokémon just that it's event only... I-- think? I really don't understand what makes a mythical pokemon not legendary.
Updated
sipothac said:
also mega_evolution, and eeveelution
Mega evolution is a state of evolution, similar to gigantamax. It's not a pokemon designation, but an alternate form of a preexisting pokemon. Eeveelution is an evolved eevee form; which I suppose you could say is a designation of sorts, but with a common root of being derived from eevee (interestingly, it existed as a fan term long before it became an official term). "Baby pokemon" is just a pokemon who's gimic is they can't breed in the games (you can bet your bottom dollar there are depictions of those species breeding in fan art).
sipothac said:
baby_pokemon is pretty much the only designation we don't have a tag for.
And rodent pokemon, fire-type pokemon, mythical pokemon...
watsit said:
and rodent pokemon, fire-type pokemon, mythical pokemon...
"rodent pokémon" isn't a category of pokémon, there isn't even any pokémon that's designated as "Rodent Pokémon" by the pokédex, ratata and raticate are both "Mouse Pokémon" and that's still not a category. and typing isn't category either.
"mythical" is like a borderline meaningless category, for almost all intents and purposes (mechanical, lore, whatever) it's the same as legendaries.
Updated
dimoretpinel said:
Maybe a child_species tag? Because not only pokemon has canonically child species.Feirune is a canonically child species as a wrym, before she evolves into a light dragon.
Feirune is also reincarnated, like most of the cast, and about twenty-six to twenty-eight, chronologically prior to change in species. So I'm a Spider treats, given the RPG systems, monster races as classes, age is irrelevant, unless going from having a sword to having a bow magically makes a knight older.
What Feirune is, however, is in the body of a sub-adult Earth Dragon, of which we see a mature version that has lost the fluff in favour of scales. Are we going to start tagging other creatures that undergo metamorphosis due to age as "child_species"? Where does that end? Caterpillars? Maggots? Grubs? Bird hatchlings? Eels? Salmon?
I disagree with this for the sole reason that all of the given can be drawn as anthros, and thus can be of any age. One of my favorite examples of this is post #2813016 which depicts what is clearly an anthro riolu in its 20s. There's also plenty of pictures of Spyro drawn as an adult, even though in the OG games he was a teenager. Just because some company designated them as the category with the name "baby" doesn't mean they can't be drawn as adults.
kyureki said:
I disagree with this for the sole reason that all of the given can be drawn as anthros, and thus can be of any age. One of my favorite examples of this is post #2813016 which depicts what is clearly an anthro riolu in its 20s. There's also plenty of pictures of Spyro drawn as an adult, even though in the OG games he was a teenager. Just because some company designated them as the category with the name "baby" doesn't mean they can't be drawn as adults.
we have the aged_up tag for situations like spyro being older since it's a single character. if people didn't want to see posts containing characters who are visibily young or canonically young they should be able to just blacklist young and aged_up. but if they also didn't want to see pokémon who are canonically young they'd have to blacklist all 18 individually.
that's why we should have a baby_pokemon tag that's implied by all the species of baby pokémon. maybe call it baby_pokemon_(category) if there's confusion about what the tag is meant for.
sipothac said:
that's why we should have a baby_pokemon tag that's implied by all the species of baby pokémon. maybe call it baby_pokemon_(category) if there's confusion about what the tag is meant for.
I don't think having 'baby' in the name of the tag is a good idea, since people will misinterpret it poorly, as shown here
snpthecat said:
I don't think having 'baby' in the name of the tag is a good idea, since people will misinterpret it poorly, as shown here
but that's what they're called, though. and I don't really think it'd be possible to come up with a name for the same group that wouldn't have that problem if we wanted to.
the only thing that'd be almost similar is tagging them as undiscovered egg group (which the baby pokémon are in), but the undiscovered egg group contains a lot of fucking pokémon (every legendary except manaphy and phione, all the ultra beasts, all the paradox pokémons, the chimeric fossil pokémon, and several other random mons like unown and nidorina), also I just don't really want us to tag egg groups...
sipothac said:
but that's what they're called, though. and I don't really think it'd be possible to come up with a name for the same group that wouldn't have that problem if we wanted to.
People don't like their art being tagged as "baby_whatever" when it's clearly not a baby and especially when it's porn, even if it technically is the in-lore classification for the species, and people will misinterpret it as being applicable to any pokemon that is a baby regardless of species. The tag used to exist but was aliased away because of these problems. I see no benefit to bringing it back since it was already determined to be better gone.
watsit said:
The tag used to exist but was aliased away because of these problems. I see no benefit to bringing it back since it was already determined to be better gone.
the BUR that started that was accepted in under a week with, as far as I can tell, zero discussion prior. the thread was posted, sat dead for just over 5 days, got bumped _once_ and then was accepted just 20 minutes after that.
I dunno, I think theres still some room for discussion of these tags and I think they were done away with prematurely.
sipothac said:
the BUR that started that was accepted in under a week with, as far as I can tell, zero discussion prior.
There was a bit of discussion in topic #28014, and I'm pretty sure I've seen complaints in post comments too, but it's been years and searching comment for terms like baby and pokemon/pokémon isn't terribly easy to find particular comments. The BUR had universal approval, and prior discussions only had a couple dissenters (which weren't strictly dissenting, just offering a couple alternate options; one to make it a lore tag since it's not TWYS, and one to change "baby" to "pre-evolution" since the term "baby" can a problem, neither really on option to fix the issues).
I'm mostly against this tag. If it's only for blacklist purposes despite the fact that blacklisting the individual tags is just as effective (If not more effective, since this tag would inevitably get misused for unevolved pokemon by ppl like me who are ignorant of the lore) and has the potential to cause drama, then it doesn't seem worth it to me.
Is there any examples of artists having an issue with this tag back before it was aliased? And has anyone who wants this tag for blacklisting spoken up yet?
Don't some people have problems with all unevolved pokemon? What if there was an unevolved_pokemon tag for all first stage evolutions, for blacklisting purposes?
It would just be for pokemon that can evolve, and only for first stages. So, bulbasaur would imply the tag, charmeleon would not, absol would not.
Ex. of someone who has problems with unevolved pokemon: Braeburned says on his will draw/won't draw page that he avoids first stage evos https://www.f-list.net/c/braehorse (look at the pokemon one)
And perhaps there could be another tag for whatever the digimon equivalent is called
With only 19 baby pokemon, i agree they're not that hard to blacklist manually. But blacklisting all unevolved pokemon manually would be insane
cloudpie said:
-snip-
I kinda get this, but lines have had baby pokémon added to their evolution chain; a lot of gen 1 mons gained pre-evolutions when gen 2 added breeding, marill and wabbuffet got azurill and wynaut in gen 3, and several pokémon from each previous generation got babies added in gen 4. if this ever happened agian we'd need to update all of the stuff tagged stage-1_pokemon to stage-2_pokemon and stage-2_pokemon to stage-3_pokemon.
unless we wanted to consider baby pokémon a sort of "stage-0" but then you'd have the problem of lucario being stage-1.
sipothac said:
I kinda get this, but lines have had baby pokémon added to their evolution chain; a lot of gen 1 mons gained pre-evolutions when gen 2 added breeding, marill and wabbuffet got azurill and wynaut in gen 3, and several pokémon from each previous generation got babies added in gen 4. if this ever happened agian we'd need to update all of the stuff tagged stage-1_pokemon to stage-2_pokemon and stage-2_pokemon to stage-3_pokemon.unless we wanted to consider baby pokémon a sort of "stage-0" but then you'd have the problem of lucario being stage-1.
I didn't mean tags for all stages, just an unevolved_pokemon tag for first-stage pokemon that can evolve. I feel like it wouldn't be too hard to make the changes if a few more pokemon got pre-evos in the future. Just remove the implication, add the implication to the new pre-evo, and run a -unevolved_pokemon script on the formerly first stage pokemon.
Unrelated to my suggestion, "stage 0 pokemon" could be a possible inoffensive euphemism for a baby pokemon tag, but also people might not know what it means lol
cloudpie said:
Don't some people have problems with all unevolved pokemon? What if there was an unevolved_pokemon tag for all first stage evolutions, for blacklisting purposes?
That seems like it can get confusing. Would mewtwo be considered a first-stage evolution, since it can evolve into mega_mewtwo_x and mega_mewtwo_y? Gastly is a first-stage evolution, but I doubt people think of it on the same level as the nidoran given that it's a ghost.
There's also the issue that this can change. In gen 1, pikachu was a first-stage evolution that could evolve into raichu, then in gen 2, pichu was added as a first-stage evo and pikachu got pushed to second-stage. Porygon couldn't evolve in gen 1, then gen 2 added porygon2, and gen 4 added porygon-z. Dunsparce was added in gen 2 and couldn't evolve, then gen 9 added dudunsparce, making it a first-stage evolution after the fact. Same for girafarig (gen 2, non-evolving) and farigiraf (gen 9, new evo). Seems counter-intuitive to have a tag for blacklisting purposes, when preexisting pokemon can be added to it at any time (or removed from it, which would make cleanup a nightmare) with complaints from users not wanting to see what used to be a first-stage evo, or wanting to see what didn't used to be a first-stage evo.
cloudpie said:
I didn't mean tags for all stages, just an unevolved_pokemon tag for first-stage pokemon that can evolve. I feel like it wouldn't be too hard to make the changes if a few more pokemon got pre-evos in the future. Just remove the implication, add the implication to the new pre-evo, and run a -unevolved_pokemon script on the formerly first stage pokemon.Unrelated to my suggestion, "stage 0 pokemon" could be a possible inoffensive euphemism for a baby pokemon tag, but also people might not know what it means lol
we'd still have the problem of pokémon going from one that doesn't evolve at all to being a stage-1 when new evolutions are added later on like with tangela and tangrowth or dunsparce and dudunsparce. although that case wouldn't involve having to remove and fix tags.
watsit said:
That seems like it can get confusing. Would mewtwo be considered a first-stage evolution, since it can evolve into mega_mewtwo_x and mega_mewtwo_y?
Mewtwo would not get the tag, mega evos don't count as evolutions, they're not really the same thing, they're a temporary alternate form.
watsit said:
Gastly is a first-stage evolution, but I doubt people think of it on the same level as the nidoran given that it's a ghost.
Ghastly would count, it's a first stage evo. If someone wants to unblacklist ghastly they can add -ghastly.
watsit said:
There's also the issue that this can change. In gen 1, pikachu was a first-stage evolution that could evolve into raichu, then in gen 2, pichu was added as a first-stage evo and pikachu got pushed to second-stage. Porygon couldn't evolve in gen 1, then gen 2 added porygon2, and gen 4 added porygon-z. Dunsparce was added in gen 2 and couldn't evolve, then gen 9 added dudunsparce, making it a first-stage evolution after the fact. Same for girafarig (gen 2, non-evolving) and farigiraf (gen 9, new evo). Seems counter-intuitive to have a tag for blacklisting purposes, when preexisting pokemon can be added to it at any time (or removed from it, which would make cleanup a nightmare)
sipothac said:
we'd still have the problem of pokémon going from one that doesn't evolve at all to being a stage-1 when new evolutions are added later on like with tangela and tangrowth or dunsparce and dudunsparce. although that case wouldn't involve having to remove and fix tags.
Like I said, I feel like it wouldn't be that hard to make the changes if a few more pokemon got pre-evos in the future. Just remove the implication, add the implication to the new pre-evo, and run a -unevolved_pokemon script on the formerly first stage pokemon. And when pokemon get new evos, yes that does make them now first stage, but it's very easy to simply add an implication.
watsit said:
with complaints from users not wanting to see what used to be a first-stage evo, or wanting to see what didn't used to be a first-stage evo.
This is a good point though. Would need to get some feedback from people who would use this tag if it was added (if they exist - I assume they do but of course I could be wrong)