The bulk update request #7193 is pending approval.

change category gym_leader (3153) -> character
change category pokemon_champion (851) -> character
change category pokemon_professor (340) -> character

Reason: The tags each refer to a specific group of people, and so should be in the character category.

Note: Change frontier brain to general if BUR is rejected

I don't really think it's a specific group of people and more of a fictional profession. This is almost akin to making teacher or firefighter a character tag, imo.

faucet said:
I don't really think it's a specific group of people and more of a fictional profession. This is almost akin to making teacher or firefighter a character tag, imo.

So should pokemon trainer be moved into general category?

snpthecat said:
Reason: The tags each refer to a specific group of people, and so should be in the character category.

It seems that you are confused with how character tags are used. They are used to refer to specific named (and sometimes unnamed) characters in artwork.
The tags mentioned all refer to roles or professions (e.g., police_officer, warrior), rather than individual characters.

snpthecat said:
So should pokemon trainer be moved into general category?

Yes, it seems to refer to unnamed characters who have a role in training pokemon.
If anything, generic characters should be tagged as anon/anonymous_character/faceless_character/unnamed_character/nameless_character or not tagged with a character tag at all.

snpthecat said:
So should pokemon trainer be moved into general category?

The wiki for this one is is interesting:

A Pokémon Trainer is an unidentified, generic, or unofficial character who trains Pokémon. This tag should not be added for recognized characters like Ash Ketchum, Serena, etc.

The pokemon_trainer tag supposedly isn't to be used for recognized characters, but just generic Pokémon trainer designs, whereas the tags in the BUR all have implications from existing characters.

Looking at the search results, it's evidently not used for this though. I'm frequently seeing red_(pokemon), ash_ketchum or dawn_(pokemon) all over these results. I'd say general category would probably be good for it.

---

It's worth noting that there's some tags like hex_maniac that are also character tags, which isn't actually a specific character but a trainer class. I do wonder whether this one should be recategorized too, or if this is just exceptional.

snpthecat said:
So should pokemon trainer be moved into general category?

Pokemon trainer is supposed to be for the generic trainer characters from the series, not referring to specific characters or characters' profession. Though it's heavily misused to refer to non-generic characters' profession, to the point that I think it should be aliased away (last time I remember suggesting aliasing it away due to being over used, being applied to characters just because they have pokeballs or because they're with pokemon or because the character is "known" to be a pokemon trainer in lore, I was told someone had plans to clean it up).

thegreatwolfgang said:
It seems that you are confused with how character tags are used. They are used to refer to specific named (and sometimes unnamed) characters in artwork.
The tags mentioned all refer to roles or professions (e.g., police_officer, warrior), rather than individual characters.

Yes, I probably am confused with them. There are a couple of character tags which are a group and are implied by those in that group, like wonderbolts_(mlp). If the tags I mentioned in my original post are roles/professions, then why are they implied by character tags? If we extrapolate this, would judy hopps imply police_officer?

snpthecat said:
Yes, I probably am confused with them. There are a couple of character tags which are a group and are implied by those in that group, like wonderbolts_(mlp). If the tags I mentioned in my original post are roles/professions, then why are they implied by character tags? If we extrapolate this, would judy hopps imply police_officer?

For those mentioned, they seem to be more of a general title rather than an established group name.
I don't generally see these kind of tags a lot, but I guess it's for making searching and blacklisting easier for certain characters known under a specific group name (such as the mane_six_(mlp)).

In those cases, I guess it would make sense for them to be under character tags rather than general tags. However, I can also find counter-examples (like team_rocket) that are under copyright tags instead, so something definitely needs to be done to keep them consistent.

On another note, implying police_officer to judy_hopps wouldn't be appropriate since she can appear out of uniform or as something else entirely (e.g., just a floating head, part of a cosplay, etc.).

snpthecat said:
Yes, I probably am confused with them. There are a couple of character tags which are a group and are implied by those in that group, like wonderbolts_(mlp).

there have been some discussions around how we want to deal with group character tags, but umm... I definitely don't feel like _that_ should be a thing, implying characters to a team seems very wrong to me.

thegreatwolfgang said:
In those cases, I guess it would make sense for them to be under character tags rather than general tags. However, I can also find counter-examples (like team_rocket) that are under copyright tags instead, so something definitely needs to be done to keep them consistent.

team_rocket is a copytag because it's tagging the "brand" rather than any character.
hmm...
actually, maybe we ought to move the current team/group tags over to the copyright category entirely. having individuals tagged as characters and, like, organizations tagged as copyrights would seem to make the most sense to me.

thegreatwolfgang said:
For those mentioned, they seem to be more of a general title rather than an established group name.
I don't generally see these kind of tags a lot, but I guess it's for making searching and blacklisting easier for certain characters known under a specific group name (such as the mane_six_(mlp)).

In those cases, I guess it would make sense for them to be under character tags rather than general tags. However, I can also find counter-examples (like team_rocket) that are under copyright tags instead, so something definitely needs to be done to keep them consistent.

On another note, implying police_officer to judy_hopps since she can appear out of uniform or as something else entirely (e.g., just a floating head, part of a cosplay, etc.).

Team rocket being copyright probably has something to do with their distinct iconography. It can be shown without any of the members present, so having it as copyright instead of character is for the best.

As for the tags affected by my BUR, the implications of characters to those tags make it unsuited for the general category, as there may not be a fully TWYS way to represent gym_leader/pokemon_champion/pokemon_professor, and even if there were, the character implications would just bypass that. The implications for these tags are roughly equivalent to if kings/queens of their own canon implied the king/queen tag.