Implicating Charizard → Dragon
Link to implication

Reason:

it may not be a dragon-type, but it looks like a dragon, it has wings, and it breathes fire.

that's pretty much a dragon.

also:

Implicating Mega_charizard_x → Charizard
Link to implication
Implicating mega_charizard_y → charizard
Link to implication

and something semi-related:

Implicating Mega_charizard_x → dragon
Link to implication
Implicating mega_charizard_y → dragon
Link to implication

We don't implicate characters to species because somebody could draw the character as a different species. For example, somebody could draw a human in a Charizard costume or Super Smash Brothers Kirby with Charizard power. Neither of those would actually be dragons.

Deh-tiger said:
We don't implicate characters to species because somebody could draw the character as a different species. For example, somebody could draw a human in a Charizard costume or Super Smash Brothers Kirby with Charizard power. Neither of those would actually be dragons.

Charizard is a species though, not a character.

a species of pokemon.

although i do see your point, i dont exactly see anything wrong with that.

there's also a ton of other pokemon that can be implicated to say, feline or canine, snake, etc.

Scakk said:
Charizard is a species though, not a character.

a species of pokemon.

although i do see your point, i dont exactly see anything wrong with that.

there's also a ton of other pokemon that can be implicated to say, feline or canine, snake, etc.

Yeah, pokemon are technically species, but we still don't implicate them to real-life species. I probably should have mentioned in my first post that this has already been discussed several times. https://e621.net/forum/show/139513

[Mega_pokemon] -> [pokemon] has also been discussed before.
https://e621.net/forum/show/157485

Deh-tiger said:
Yeah, pokemon are technically species, but we still don't implicate them to real-life species. I probably should have mentioned in my first post that this has already been discussed several times. https://e621.net/forum/show/139513

[Mega_pokemon] -> [pokemon] has also been discussed before. https://e621.net/forum/show/157485

oh :/

Deh-tiger said:

We also don't do [Mega_pokemon] -> [pokemon] implications for the reasons mentioned here: https://e621.net/forum/show/157485

The thing is though, a lot of people forget the regular species tag or they forget the mega evolution tag.

like the other day, i searched for a picture that should've had "charizard underwear male solo"

post #616096

but it only had mega_charizard_x on it and it was missing "charizard underwear" so i had to search that instead, which is longer to type and annoying.

Deh-tiger said:
We don't implicate characters to species because somebody could draw the character as a different species. For example, somebody could draw a human in a Charizard costume or Super Smash Brothers Kirby with Charizard power. Neither of those would actually be dragons.

also about the things like costume and such.

its still, say, charizard, if its a charizard costume, and charizard is still a dragon, the only difference is that the human would exist too, or whatever species the person is.

didnt we decide that we do not implicate pokemons to any species

Yeah, I don't think it's a good idea to implicate pokemons to any other species just because they have the similar traits.

But I think it's ok(?) to tag them with their biological families like canines, reptiles, etc.

Scakk said:
also about the things like costume and such.

its still, say, charizard, if its a charizard costume, and charizard is still a dragon, the only difference is that the human would exist too, or whatever species the person is.

post #16832 the character on the right would still get the charizard tag, but never the Dragon tag. Which is why this implication has been denied time and time again.

NotMeNotYou said:
post #16832 the character on the right would still get the charizard tag, but never the Dragon tag. Which is why this implication has been denied time and time again.

I find it strange that a character that only barely resembles a charizard would get charizard tag. If that would be a solo pic of the human, would it get the charizard tag? Seems pretty farfetch'd. Without the charizard it just looks like a human with orange colored clothes and a wacky hairstyle.

Denied for the reasons already mentioned.

Chessax said:
I find it strange that a character that only barely resembles a charizard would get charizard tag. If that would be a solo pic of the human, would it get the charizard tag? Seems pretty farfetch'd. Without the charizard it just looks like a human with orange colored clothes and a wacky hairstyle.

post #449857

Chessax said:
I find it strange that a character that only barely resembles a charizard would get charizard tag. If that would be a solo pic of the human, would it get the charizard tag?

The thing that really makes pokemon tricky is that often-as-not, the pokemon species is also the pokemon's name.

Say Ash's pikachu suddenly became a human overnight. Likely response: "Pikachu!? What happened to you?" Not: "What happened to you, uhh... what do I call you now? Human?"

Given it's an identifying name, it still ends up used if the form it is in changes...unlike an ordinary species tag.

parasprite said:
post #449857

That's a orange mlp style earth pony with the writing charmander next to it >:|

If I post an proper furry image with a background consisting of 1000 random common characters, species and nouns, should I tag every word in the picture?

Nyteshade said:
The thing that really makes pokemon tricky is that often-as-not, the pokemon species is also the pokemon's name.

Say Ash's pikachu suddenly became a human overnight. Likely response: "Pikachu!? What happened to you?" Not: "What happened to you, uhh... what do I call you now? Human?"

Given it's an identifying name, it still ends up used if the form it is in changes...unlike an ordinary species tag.

I hate pokémon and mlp, and a lot of other stuff, not because I hate them per se, but because they mess up tagging! I also hate all languages for being ambiguous and reusing words, especially english 'cause that's what we tag in.

I wonder why I'm so pissed off at the moment, not quite like me to be...

Nyteshade said:
The thing that really makes pokemon tricky is that often-as-not, the pokemon species is also the pokemon's name.

Say Ash's pikachu suddenly became a human overnight. Likely response: "Pikachu!? What happened to you?" Not: "What happened to you, uhh... what do I call you now? Human?"

Given it's an identifying name, it still ends up used if the form it is in changes...unlike an ordinary species tag.

IMO that's not really true. Even in games there are nicknames for pokemons, and there are tags for pokemon OC (like nicobay).

Pokemon should be like any other species. However if I remember correctly it was decided recently that when there's character in <species> costume it's just better to tag <species> and cosplay then to create another set of <species>_costume tags.

Granberia said:
IMO that's not really true. Even in games there are nicknames for pokemons, and there are tags for pokemon OC (like nicobay).

Yes, some pokemon get named, but I've seen no evidence of it being the norm. (It's been years since I watched the show, but in it pokemon were pretty much exclusively referred to by their species and not by name/nickname.)

Pokemon already has such a horde of tags without then adding pokemon_name vs pokemon_species.

I'll leave this topic alone now. Said my piece and the policy is already clear regardless (as stated by two admins this thread already).

I think I should mention that tagging them with that species (e.g., ponyta + horse) is perfectly fine as long as they resemble that. It's just that actually implying them tends to be far more complicated than it is worth, and tends to break unexpectedly.

Granberia said:
IMO that's not really true. Even in games there are nicknames for pokemons, and there are tags for pokemon OC (like nicobay).

Pokemon should be like any other species. However if I remember correctly it was decided recently that when there's character in <species> costume it's just better to tag <species> and cosplay then to create another set of <species>_costume tags.

ashchu :P

Correct. There are some that might be common enough to use as a *_costume tag (wolf_costume, bunny_costume, etc.), but adding one for each and every species would be kind of pointless and add a lot of unnecessary work for us (e.g., approving and creating implications).

Nyteshade said:
Yes, some pokemon get named, but I've seen no evidence of it being the norm. (It's been years since I watched the show, but in it pokemon were pretty much exclusively referred to by their species and not by name/nickname.)

Pokemon already has such a horde of tags without then adding pokemon_name vs pokemon_species.

I'll leave this topic alone now. Said my piece and the policy is already clear regardless (as stated by two admins this thread already).

the anime doesnt really name pokemon, because its an anime/show, where the creators dont really care for that thing, and it would probably confuse a lot of people who watch it.

BUT, in Pokemon The First Movie, many of the trainers had actually named their pokemon.

but in the games i like to think naming your pokemon is pretty common because its a way to express yourself or something like that.

for me anyway, i always name my playthrough team and any pokemon that i actually use, so it feels less generic, and because i like to think of my team as well, an actual team, each pokemon is unique and for me, should be treated as such, i always give my pokemon names that i think matches their species personality or what they they look like/their type, etc.

Scakk said:

i always give my pokemon names that i think matches their species personality or what they they look like/their type, etc.

I strive to name my pokemon based on as many bad puns and wordplay as possible. When I can't think of anything, that means I need sleep and should stop playing. :P

parasprite said:
I strive to name my pokemon based on as many bad puns and wordplay as possible. When I can't think of anything, that means I need sleep and should stop playing. :P

my 1st starter was a charmander, which i named FireTail. :I
because it had a tail....and it was on fire, lol.

i've stuck with that name for my charizards. xD