I hope I'm doing this right. Anyway I have a suggestion for a tag (obviously). I'm wondering if it's possible for there to be a starter Pokemon tag to make finding pictures of the starter Pokemon and their evolutions easier.

ThePaleRider said:
I hope I'm doing this right. Anyway I have a suggestion for a tag (obviously). I'm wondering if it's possible for there to be a starter Pokemon tag to make finding pictures of the starter Pokemon and their evolutions easier.

Well, you could also go to the Tags page, go to Implications, then click "suggest" and put in start pokemon names in the first box, and "starter_pokemon" in the second (imply to) box, with the reason beneath, for future reference.

This said, not sure we really need this; For any images with a starter pokemon, you either know what the starters are, or it's not really that relevant, I feel.

but wouldnt this be a problem for lets say pikachu who was a starter in pokemon yellow? it just doesnt seem worth a tag

With eeveeloutions, and legendary+pokemon being declared valid tags, I would say go for it.
And yes, pikachu would be a starter.
As would espeon, umbreon, and eevee thanks to colosseum and XD.

Halite said:
With eeveeloutions, and legendary+pokemon being declared valid tags, I would say go for it.
And yes, pikachu would be a starter.
As would espeon, umbreon, and eevee thanks to colosseum and XD.

I thought we were trying to get rid of eeveelutions and legendary_pokemon?

123easy said:
I thought we were trying to get rid of eeveelutions and legendary_pokemon?

We were, but they were decided to be acceptable tags, so this one would be as well.

Halite said:
We were, but they were decided to be acceptable tags, so this one would be as well.

when in the hell did that happen?

Halite said:
We were, but they were decided to be acceptable tags, so this one would be as well.

When? O.o

Yeah, seriously Halite- When? i don't remember it ever being a-ok'd.

It begins. 3 more months, and there would be pokemon_which_name_starts_with_letter_a tag. I called it since eeveelution was accepted.

BTW, even if I somehow can understand reason for eeveelution tag I really fail to see why legendary_pokemon or suggested starter tag can be useful. eeveelutions are at least pokemons that are somewhat similar to each other. But who searches/blacklists legendary_pokemon? This is set of totally different pokemons with no common theme. There are both big ones, and small ones. Anthro and feral. I just don't see why reason why this tag exists.

123easy said:
Well, you could also go to the Tags page, go to Implications, then click "suggest" and put in start pokemon names in the first box, and "starter_pokemon" in the second (imply to) box, with the reason beneath, for future reference.

This said, not sure we really need this; For any images with a starter pokemon, you either know what the starters are, or it's not really that relevant, I feel.

Thanks for telling me how to suggest tags and I never really looked at it like that to be honest I guess I was just being lazy and not wanting to have to search for each individual starter and it's evolutions. ya know just search one tag and their all there.

...That sounds even further less like a needed tag and far more like a need of stop being lazy. >_>

While we're at it, why not tag baby pokemon, first evolutions, second evolutions, male evolution variant, female evolution variant, evolutions that require a trade, evolutions that require stones, pokemon who evolve at level 30, Kanto region pokemon, Johto region pokemon, Hoenn region pokemon, Sinnoh region pokemon, and pokemon with more than one type?

SirAntagonist said:
While we're at it, why not tag (...)

You forgot pokemon with alternative personality. For example, if magikarp doesn't suck it should be named differently.

Conker said:
when in the hell did that happen?

https://e621.net/forum/show/76723?page=2
https://e621.net/forum/show/79741
https://e621.net/forum/show/93230

And even 3 years back, though it was more of a "wtf is this tag?" moment than anything else:
https://e621.net/forum/show/9478

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
It begins. 3 more months, and there would be pokemon_which_name_starts_with_letter_a tag. I called it since eeveelution was accepted.

BTW, even if I somehow can understand reason for eeveelution tag I really fail to see why legendary_pokemon or suggested starter tag can be useful. eeveelutions are at least pokemons that are somewhat similar to each other. But who searches/blacklists legendary_pokemon? This is set of totally different pokemons with no common theme. There are both big ones, and small ones. Anthro and feral. I just don't see why reason why this tag exists.

I agree with this, eeveelutions is okay because they're all from one source Pokemon but legendary and starter Pokemon have too many differences to be a valid search tag, if you wanted to search them you could easily type any of their names, but the eeveelutions are commonly seen together, and that tag helps find said images.

Halite said:
https://e621.net/forum/show/79741

Why did I suggested it? D: Was I drunk?

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
Why did I suggested it? D: Was I drunk?

What if you also created pinkamena_(mlp) all along?

Seven_Twenty said:
What if you also created pinkamena_(mlp) all along?

Halite's comment there make me feel less dirty about it. Especially since those implications suggestions were apparently ignored. It also makes me more skeptical when one claims "Tag is used a lot - therefore it's useful." Tag can be used a lot because one user with access to tag script likes it.

Sollux said:
I agree with this, eeveelutions is okay because they're all from one source Pokemon but legendary and starter Pokemon have too many differences to be a valid search tag, if you wanted to search them you could easily type any of their names, but the eeveelutions are commonly seen together, and that tag helps find said images.

I wasn't questioning the usefulness of it, I simply thought that we were trying to get rid of them. Also, honestly I feel it should be a pool, not a tag; it's being used as a pool for all the eevee evolutions as it is. If we're going to use tags as pools now (which is contrary to everything we've been saying and doing for the past... however many years, now?) then what's the point of having pools? Just make a tag for a comic, since they're all related. Then you can just tag search the comic by the title that they're all tagged under, instead of pulling up the pool that it belongs to. (In case it wasn't obvious, this was sarcasm).

That's not what pools are for.
Pools are for comics, image sets, etc. that are closely related.
We wouldn't create a pool for all Corruption_of_Champions related images, eeveeloutions isn't a good pool either.

Halite said:
That's not what pools are for.
Pools are for comics, image sets, etc. that are closely related.
We wouldn't create a pool for all Corruption_of_Champions related images, eeveeloutions isn't a good pool either.

https://e621.net/help/pools "Pools are for groups of posts with a common theme." First line. Pokemon that are starters, pokemon that evolve from eevee, both seem like they'd be appropriate pools. The only reason I'd not do a CoC pool is because it's a copyright tag.

123easy said:
https://e621.net/help/pools "Pools are for groups of posts with a common theme." First line. Pokemon that are starters, pokemon that evolve from eevee, both seem like they'd be appropriate pools. The only reason I'd not do a CoC pool is because it's a copyright tag.

"Should a group of posts go into a pool or a set? If the posts naturally belong together, such as pages of a comic or a series of closely related images drawn by one artist, they should go into a pool. Posts that only belong together because of you (for example, your favorite images, or images of your various characters) should go in sets."

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
if magikarp doesn't suck it should be named differently.

u wot m8

To be fair, there are 7 pokemon with worse base stats than Magikarp.

Also, based on that image, and your avatar... SirAntagonist fucks magikarp.

Halite said:
"Should a group of posts go into a pool or a set? If the posts naturally belong together, such as pages of a comic or a series of closely related images drawn by one artist, they should go into a pool. Posts that only belong together because of you (for example, your favorite images, or images of your various characters) should go in sets."

I'm looking at the pools help and not seeing that written anywhere. In fact, every single link to pools that I can find, through the pools tab, the ">>" menu listing, via the wiki index, all lead to the one that I linked, which doesn't mention anything of the sort. EDIT: found it under Sets. Mkay, now that I've found it...

One: Why isn't that informationa t all covered by pools help? Sets' wiki help is massively better detailed compared to the pools' wiki help page. >.<

Two: at first glance it seems to be over-specific in the first case, detailing what should go into pools (only related images belonging to one artist, or a comic, which usually defaults to the first catagory as well), while being immensely broad yet at the same time incredibly specific in the second (Only images that would be brought together because of YOU, not by any other reason. Makes me chuckle every time I read it. Silly wording!), but with the way it is written it explicitly is stating that pictures that belong together should be pooled, and then simply gives the examples of images belonging toa specific artist or that are part of a comic. It doesn't say those are the only two ways in which pools should be used, just common examples of it. We just simply haven't used them otherwise because we haven't seen any need to. Eevee evolutions are closely related, after all.

Halite said:
SirAntagonist fucks magikarp.

post #237983

123easy said:
I'm looking at the pools help and not seeing that written anywhere. In fact, every single link to pools that I can find, through the pools tab, the ">>" menu listing, via the wiki index, all lead to the one that I linked, which doesn't mention anything of the sort. EDIT: found it under Sets. Mkay, now that I've found it...

One: Why isn't that informationa t all covered by pools help? Sets' wiki help is massively better detailed compared to the pools' wiki help page. >.<

Two: at first glance it seems to be over-specific in the first case, detailing what should go into pools (only related images belonging to one artist, or a comic, which usually defaults to the first catagory as well), while being immensely broad yet at the same time incredibly specific in the second (Only images that would be brought together because of YOU, not by any other reason. Makes me chuckle every time I read it. Silly wording!), but with the way it is written it explicitly is stating that pictures that belong together should be pooled, and then simply gives the examples of images belonging toa specific artist or that are part of a comic. It doesn't say those are the only two ways in which pools should be used, just common examples of it. We just simply haven't used them otherwise because we haven't seen any need to. Eevee evolutions are closely related, after all.

Pools help is much, much older.
TBH, it probably needs a rewrite.

SirAntagonist said:
u wot m8

Well sorry, but all pokemon professors are in agreement in their pokedex entries that it sucks. Even Profesor Birch who was mugged by zigzagoon thinks magikarp is pathetic.

Therefore not weak magikarp is dramatically different version of magikarp and should be tagged magikarpena, or something like that.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
Well sorry, but all pokemon professors are in agreement in their pokedex entries that it sucks. Even Profesor Birch who was mugged by zigzagoon thinks magikarp is pathetic.

Therefore not weak magikarp is dramatically different version of magikarp and should be tagged magikarpena, or something like that.

Well, obviously there's a racist conspiracy among Pokemon professors that are biased against Magikarp. Or they don't want anyone to know how badass they are so they can keep them all to themselves and rule the world one day.

And I'd totally do Magikarpena.

SirAntagonist said:
Well, obviously there's a racist conspiracy among Pokemon professors that are biased against Magikarp. Or they don't want anyone to know how badass they are so they can keep them all to themselves and rule the world one day.

post #319265

I don't think I can get behind a tag for starter pokemon. As others have said, there's really nothing at all that links them together other than they're the pokemon you have to choose from at the start of the games, and they're different in most of the games. Plus, you can find the "starter" pokemon out in the wild too, they're not exclusive to the start of the game.

Eeveelution distinguishes itself from this because it is grouping together a bunch of tags/species that ARE related (think "canine" or "dragon").

Speaking of related species, I suppose this is a good place ask. I remember someone wondering whether there's any way to search for explicit images of pokemon that capable of breeding together. In other words, pokemon that are in the same egg group. I don't think there's any way to search for that.

So... I'm wondering if it'd be a good or bad idea to start tagging those with something like compatible_egg_group?

Genjar said:
Speaking of related species, I suppose this is a good place ask. I remember someone wondering whether there's any way to search for explicit images of pokemon that capable of breeding together. In other words, pokemon that are in the same egg group. I don't think there's any way to search for that.

So... I'm wondering if it'd be a good or bad idea to start tagging those with something like compatible_egg_group?

Come on, there's even meme (skitty and wailord) making fun how pokemon in egg groups are completely unrelated to each other.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
Come on, there's even meme (skitty and wailord) making fun how pokemon in egg groups are completely unrelated to each other.

Well, completely unrelated is a bit much, given that a) they are all related rather closely genetically, b) all life is based on the same originator, (yes, in the Pokemon world humans are descended from the same evolutionary line that lead to Pokemon; they simply branched apart in the past before Pokemon became defined as Pokemon, canonically). :3

This said, "Breeding_Pair" or smth might work, when it deals with the getting pregnant fetish, so not every image gets another pointless tag.

123easy said:
Well, completely unrelated is a bit much, given that a) they are all related rather closely genetically, b) all life is based on the same originator, (yes, in the Pokemon world humans are descended from the same evolutionary line that lead to Pokemon; they simply branched apart in the past before Pokemon became defined as Pokemon, canonically). :3

This said, "Breeding_Pair" or smth might work, when it deals with the getting pregnant fetish, so not every image gets another pointless tag.

No, just no. Eeveelution is already redundant, and bad tag. This is even worse. There is site for pokemon fandom too. It also has tags. Keep them there.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
No, just no. Eeveelution is already redundant, and bad tag. This is even worse. There is site for pokemon fandom too. It also has tags. Keep them there.

I like Pokemon and I agree you don't really need alot of those tags. (breeding_pair, starter_Pokemon, legendary_Pokemon, eeveelutions)
i made a suggestion in a CMC alias thread for a character_set tag and i do think it could replace eeveelutions and starter_Pokemon, were the tag already existing, assuming its a picture with a starter_Pokemon theme.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
No, just no. Eeveelution is already redundant, and bad tag. This is even worse. There is site for pokemon fandom too. It also has tags. Keep them there.

Eeveelution is no more redundant than "canine" is redundant. Do you want the ability to find all canines at once with a single tag, or would you argue that it's unneeded because you could just search for all canine breed names together? It's literally the same thing, except the animals are fictional in this case.

Char said:
except the animals are fictional in this case.

And we're treating fictional species completely different than real ones, that is unless they belong to one of two most fandoms. (See pointless, underused earth_pony tag.) There are no tags for mega type digimons. We're not making special aggregate tag for medians in Slightly Damned.

The reason is that to real species scientific classification is applied which is well thought and make sense.
The fictional species classifications are constantly changing, are often inconsistent, and sometimes are just stupid.

Also this tag wasn't used before implications were made. Before implications there were 238 instances of this tag. Umbreon alone had at that time 5 times more instances. Implications were made to tag nobody really uses and you IMO just try to rationalize why it was done.

--

Anyway even if we accept eeveelution as valid tag. It still only makes valid hundreds of tags like bulbasaur's_evolution. Suggestions about group eggs are still going further than that.

Char said:
Eeveelution is no more redundant than "canine" is redundant. Do you want the ability to find all canines at once with a single tag, or would you argue that it's unneeded because you could just search for all canine breed names together? It's literally the same thing, except the animals are fictional in this case.

Personally? I DO think that "canine" is sorta redundant when we have fox, wolf, jackal, coyote, and dog tags and then breed tags on top of those. I also agree with Gilda that the majority of its usage is just through the implication rather than because anyone is specifically tagging posts with it or using it for searchability. As I stated, I really don't see anyone consistantly looking for all the eevee at once, since people typically have just a few favourites. If they really like them THAT MUCH... good for them? It's the same thing as the scootabuse tag, a way-too-fandom-specific tag that only gets used by those that are really into the fandom. We're a furry art site, not a fandom site.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
No, just no. Eeveelution is already redundant, and bad tag. This is even worse. There is site for pokemon fandom too. It also has tags. Keep them there.

I wasn't meaning for breeding_pair to be pokemon-specific, but for any case where two characters are mating with either intent to impregnate or capacity and execution of potential impregnation; This doesn't mean that the female has to become pregnant, but that she can become pregnant. If you still consider that a bad tag, s'alright. Just wanted to clarify on that.

EDIT: Oh, and additionally? Most scientists can't even agree on the definition of species, only a loose set of characteristics on how to apply it (not to mention other clade types and what belongs to which clade... Some bird species are still not even completely classified because they can't agree on its placement, sometimes for something as simple as separation of two species or if it's just a subspecies), and the field of cladistics tends to alter itself dramatically every couple of generations, so it's more like a slightly slower version of fictional classifications than anything actually stable in its own right.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
The reason is that to real species scientific classification is applied which is well thought and make sense.
The fictional species classifications are constantly changing, are often inconsistent, and sometimes are just stupid.

It has been extremely well established that the pokemon "Eevee" has many possible evolutions. This is never going to change, it's been a part of the pokemon universe since it was created, and they've only expanded on it since then, and they have NOT "undone" any of the other evolutions they've introduced prior, and it's extremely unlikely they ever will. I don't consider this a valid concern, personally.

You've said that fictional animal classifications are constantly changing. I'm going to need you to actually demonstrate that, please. Otherwise I have to assume that my own observations and experiences are correct.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
Also this tag wasn't used before implications were made. Before implications there were 238 instances of this tag. Umbreon alone had at that time 5 times more instances. Implications were made to tag nobody really uses and you IMO just try to rationalize why it was done.

Because someone correctly pointed out that it was very difficult to search for ALL of them at the same time as a standard user. To instantly dismiss a tag because "it's only on a few hundred posts compared to the THOUSANDS that it COULD apply to" seems short-sighted to me. It doesn't necessarily mean "the tag is useless because it's not getting tagged as often as it should"; the whole POINT of implicating tags is to make sure all relevant, correct tags that should be on a post ARE on the post.

I'm still failing to understand the logic behind thinking that something like "bulldog" should imply "canine", but "vaporeon" shouldn't imply "eeveelution". We also have "werewolf" implying "canine" right now; should that be undone because werewolves are fictional creatures? What about different types of dragons, like wyverns? We don't currently have an implication for this, but should "wyvern" not imply "dragon"? Every source I find seems to indicate that, even if they're not considered dragons themselves (which most DO seem to consider them dragons), they at least have a dragon's head so the tag would still apply.

Char said:
It has been extremely well established that the pokemon "Eevee" has many possible evolutions. This is never going to change, it's been a part of the pokemon universe since it was created, and they've only expanded on it since then, and they have NOT "undone" any of the other evolutions they've introduced prior, and it's extremely unlikely they ever will. I don't consider this a valid concern, personally.

You've said that fictional animal classifications are constantly changing. I'm going to need you to actually demonstrate that, please. Otherwise I have to assume that my own observations and experiences are correct.

Because someone correctly pointed out that it was very difficult to search for ALL of them at the same time as a standard user. To instantly dismiss a tag because "it's only on a few hundred posts compared to the THOUSANDS that it COULD apply to" seems short-sighted to me. It doesn't necessarily mean "the tag is useless because it's not getting tagged as often as it should"; the whole POINT of implicating tags is to make sure all relevant, correct tags that should be on a post ARE on the post.

I'm still failing to understand the logic behind thinking that something like "bulldog" should imply "canine", but "vaporeon" shouldn't imply "eeveelution". We also have "werewolf" implying "canine" right now; should that be undone because werewolves are fictional creatures? What about different types of dragons, like wyverns? We don't currently have an implication for this, but should "wyvern" not imply "dragon"? Every source I find seems to indicate that, even if they're not considered dragons themselves (which most DO seem to consider them dragons), they at least have a dragon's head so the tag would still apply.

I think eeveelutions should only be tagged if a minimum of two different ones are in the same picture, because if you search eeveelutions you probably want want them interacting with each other.

Char said:
It has been extremely well established that the pokemon "Eevee" has many possible evolutions. This is never going to change, it's been a part of the pokemon universe since it was created, and they've only expanded on it since then, and they have NOT "undone" any of the other evolutions they've introduced prior, and it's extremely unlikely they ever will. I don't consider this a valid concern, personally.

Genetics in Pokemon are fucked up. :P They're basically a super-simplistic take on real-world genetics, substituting egg groups for cladistics, and what is the worst, most egregrious abuse of language in my opinion, treating metamorphosis as evolution, which is appropriate because the creator of Pokemon based it on his insect collection, so it being based around gradual, incomplete, and complete metamorphosis is understandable. Calling it evolution is not. Bah.

You've said that fictional animal classifications are constantly changing. I'm going to need you to actually demonstrate that, please. Otherwise I have to assume that my own observations and experiences are correct. Because someone correctly pointed out that it was very difficult to search for ALL of them at the same time as a standard user.

Fictional classifications for pretty much everything else changes constantly. See the huge hullabaloo I've raised over in the dragon alias thread because I consider my scalesona's species as Black Dragon, but what exactly is defined as "Black Dragon" differs from myself to the next person who defines their character as a Black Dragon, or even what constitutes a Black Dragon or not (is it just a subspecies of "dragon" with black scales? Is it a full separate species that simply was named "Black Dragon" because they were its most defining characteristic, like the Poison Dart Frog, Grey/Red Wolf/Fox, and other similar species? and so on). Pokemon are one of the few exceptions to this variation... And don't get me started on two different furres mating and producing a baby. How do genetics work? Howeever the owners of the characters deside for them to at the time, possibly even switching them some time down the road without retconning existing characters. >_>; It's a clusterfuck, in other words.

THIS ALL SAID, I do have to agree with you that the Eevee > its evolutions link is very stable. I just think they shouldn't implicate eeveelutions as a tag. It's basically finding a fancy way of tagging them all with the Eevee tag (which I don't support at all since they definitely aren't Eevee), and if you were THAT enamoured with them, as I noted above, just search for them all in different searches. Bleh. This is why I say to make it a pool since they ARE closely related to each other by the common factor of their antecedent. They get their large pool of all the eevee evolutions + eevee that's searchable, we get our cleaner, shorter tags list.

It doesn't necessarily mean "the tag is useless because it's not getting tagged as often as it should"; the whole POINT of implicating tags is to make sure all relevant, correct tags that should be on a post ARE on the post.

Actually, that's the definition of useless by which we delete tags. Are they getting tagged? No? Alias it away to invalid tag or a related tag to clean it up. The issue here is we are not seeing sufficient relevancy behind its existance.

I'm still failing to understand the logic behind thinking that something like "bulldog" should imply "canine", but "vaporeon" shouldn't imply "eeveelution". We also have "werewolf" implying "canine" right now; should that be undone because werewolves are fictional creatures? What about different types of dragons, like wyverns? We don't currently have an implication for this, but should "wyvern" not imply "dragon"? Every source I find seems to indicate that, even if they're not considered dragons themselves (which most DO seem to consider them dragons), they at least have a dragon's head so the tag would still apply.

As I noted above, personally I think the canine ur-tag has gotten too bloated for its own good and should be scrapped, just like the rest of the scientific name tags. Back when we had only 3-4 tags to work with, having canine to search multiple canine types was great, same with feline. With six tags, most searches only use half that because of over-specialized tags like eeveelutions and the rest. Yes, we need accessability, but there is also such a thing as going to far to cater to users' laziness.

to more directly address your points in this paragraph, though; Werewolf is tagged canine because it is a wolf-human hybrid, basically the very first wolf anthro furry. :P Bearsarkers were basically the same thing, but to bears, and hey wore the skins of the animal, which was said to merge with their flesh and turn them into a human/bear hybrid. Lastly, wyverns usually aren't dragons, per ce, though they are draconic. In other words, they're related to dragons like how neanderthals are considered to be related to homo sapiens- that is, a primitve lookalike that isn't directly related but falls under the same general catagory. The most obvious physical difference is the lack of forearms (severely underdeveloped forearms like a T-Rex's are acceptable as well) and a much smaller physical size when compared to a typical adult dragon, but otherwise draconic features such that if you saw just its head or saw it from the back it would appear as if it was a juvenile dragon. This is, by the by, just the most popular opinion on the subject, not the only, and once again falls under the clause stated above regarding fictional animal classifications being as fluid as they are depending on personal preferences.

EDIT:

Sollux said:
I think eeveelutions should only be tagged if a minimum of two different ones are in the same picture, because if you search eeveelutions you probably want want them interacting with each other.

That's... hmm. That's actually not that bad an idea. It would actually give the tag some use beyond bloat and easing laziness... but it runs into the same issue as the Cutie Mark Crusaders tag that is being used improperly to tag any image of them instead of just images where they are together and working towards a goal as a club.

123easy said: That's... hmm. That's actually not that bad an idea. It would actually give the tag some use beyond bloat and easing laziness... but it runs into the same issue as the Cutie Mark Crusaders tag that is being used improperly to tag any image of them instead of just images where they are together and working towards a goal as a club.

I really feel like a broken record here, but I cannot suggest character_set enough, noones said anything that could prove it to be a not worthwhile tag and it fixes eeveelutions, cutie mark crusaders, mane 6 if that were a thing, and starter Pokemon if it were. The only thing we'd have to do is make sure the rules behind said tag were clear, like how many of the set are required to tag it so. I'd say it varies dependant on the material, CMC would need all three, mane six would need 4/6 and eeveelutions would need minimum of 2 or 3 and starters would need 3. At least that's my opinion on it. it'd Clean up a few other tags and allow some other people to get the equivalent tag for more specific things they wanted but couldn't get passed.

123easy said:
I wasn't meaning for breeding_pair to be pokemon-specific, but for any case where two characters are mating with either intent to impregnate or capacity and execution of potential impregnation; This doesn't mean that the female has to become pregnant, but that she can become pregnant.

That... seems like an interesting idea. Could be a popular tag among the impregnation fetishists. Especially since so few images can be properly tagged as impregnation under the TWYS rules.

Sollux said:
I really feel like a broken record here, but I cannot suggest character_set enough, noones said anything that could prove it to be a not worthwhile tag and it fixes eeveelutions, cutie mark crusaders, mane 6 if that were a thing, and starter Pokemon if it were. The only thing we'd have to do is make sure the rules behind said tag were clear, like how many of the set are required to tag it so. I'd say it varies dependant on the material, CMC would need all three, mane six would need 4/6 and eeveelutions would need minimum of 2 or 3 and starters would need 3. At least that's my opinion on it. it'd Clean up a few other tags and allow some other people to get the equivalent tag for more specific things they wanted but couldn't get passed.

Character_set as you suggest it is just a giant bloat tag, because there would be just a huge mishmash of character groups that you'd be using to tag with it. Certainly you could go, say, "applebloom character_set" to get the group that she's tagged for, but at that point it would be better to just have them in a pool or set than to add yet another broad tag like that. If people still use CMC or Eeveelutions more to tag them all individually regardless of catagory, putting them into a CMC pool would make the most sense to me. Same with the Eevee evolutions.

EDIT:

Genjar said:
That... seems like an interesting idea. Could be a popular tag among the impregnation fetishists. Especially since so few images can be properly tagged as impregnation under the TWYS rules.

That was actually why I thought it up. >_>; I've always been really turned on by the concept of impregnation (willing, at least; no worries, I use my blacklist :P). One major example I can think of is the one Wolfy-Nail short comic where the girl is jogging and is in heat; the image where she complains about how pregnancy could affect her shows that she's breedable, that she could get pregnant, but not that she did become pregnant. Would very much like to find more images like that.

123easy said:
Character_set as you suggest it is just a giant bloat tag, because there would be just a huge mishmash of character groups that you'd be using to tag with it. Certainly you could go, say, "applebloom character_set" to get the group that she's tagged for, but at that point it would be better to just have them in a pool or set than to add yet another broad tag like that. If people still use CMC more to tag them all individually regardless of catagory, putting them into a CMC pool would make the most sense to me. Same with the Eevee evolutions.

CMC should not be tagged to images with only one of the characters in it anyways, and its alot of trouble going through every post of each group this tag could be used for and making pools and updating them when one tag could fix the problem.
it would look like a bloat tag but when you want an image with three or more specific and related characters in it, it will reduce the number of tags required to search for them, and that makes it useful.

Genjar said:
That... seems like an interesting idea. Could be a popular tag among the impregnation fetishists. Especially since so few images can be properly tagged as impregnation under the TWYS rules.

I don't understand it at all. I can understand people with impregnation fetish searching TWYS impregnation tag to see internal sperm going to egg. But I can't imagine person looking at cum_in_pussy pictures and complaining "OMG they are not in the same egg group! That totally kills my boner."

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
I don't understand it at all. I can understand people with impregnation fetish searching TWYS impregnation tag to see internal sperm going to egg. But I can't imagine person looking at cum_in_pussy pictures and complaining "OMG they are not in the same egg group! That totally kills my boner."

...er, what? o_o; That response from Genjar was for the "breeding_pair" tag that I posted near the top of the page;

123easy said:
I wasn't meaning for breeding_pair to be pokemon-specific, but for any case where two characters are mating with either intent to impregnate or capacity and execution of potential impregnation; This doesn't mean that the female has to become pregnant, but that she can become pregnant. If you still consider that a bad tag, s'alright. Just wanted to clarify on that.

Do not understand where the latter half of your post is coming from. ._.;

Sollux said:
CMC should not be tagged to images with only one of the characters in it anyways, and its alot of trouble going through every post of each group this tag could be used for and making pools and updating them when one tag could fix the problem.
it would look like a bloat tag but when you want an image with three or more specific and related characters in it, it will reduce the number of tags required to search for them, and that makes it useful.

The problem is that it is mistagged quite frequently as such, as Eeveelutions is tagged now. They're very similar in that aspect, but if we change the implications of the tag (as the word's actual meaning, not the tag formatting function) to only mean multiple eevee evolutions at once as we are discussing for CMC, but it gets mistagged still, it'd be problematic. Having character_set just makes a huge pool of unrelated images other than that they belong in a set of characters, basically treating it like how Eeveelutions or CMC is used now with every image with the characters tagged just because they're in a set. :x That's not useful, that's just bloat. If Eeveelutions remains as "any eevee evolution", it'd be better suited to having them all added to a pool labelled Eeveelutions instead of having it as a tag, is what I'm saying, as with CMC. And pools do have a multiple tag search add function so yo could, for example, add all the eevee evolutions, and then search that pool for specifics, same with the CMC.

123easy said:
...er, what? o_o; That response from Genjar was for the "breeding_pair" tag that I posted near the top of the page;
Do not understand where the latter half of your post is coming from. ._.;

Sorry, my mistake. But still this tag is troubling me:

but for any case where two characters are mating with either intent to impregnate or capacity and execution of potential impregnation; This doesn't mean that the female has to become pregnant, but that she can become pregnant.

How are you going to define potential of impregnation? We're talking about the world of furries - hybrids of other animals and humans. How are you going to decide whether two characters can breed or not? Your example with that comic is not really TWYS because now previous page of comic cannot be a context of tagging following pages.

@ 123easy I suppose we just have to wait until the verdict comes back as to how these tags should operate.
can you imply certain tags to make them automatically add to a pool? That would basically fix the problems I have with adding eeveelutions all into a pool and updating it frequently.
though if its decided you need multiple eeveelutions to be there for the tag I still stand by character_set.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
Sorry, my mistake. But still this tag is troubling me:

How are you going to define potential of impregnation? We're talking about the world of furries - hybrids of other animals and humans. How are you going to decide whether two characters can breed or not?

Same base animal family/genus/species (we'd have to come to a decision on that; species seems too specific since modern species can interbreed outside their species, family a bit too general; genus seems about right?) or reference to hoping not to get pregnant, or 'pull out it's not safe' (implies that she could become pregnant), that sort of thing. A horse and a zebra would qualify, as would a horse and a donkey, or a dog and a wolf. A horse and a wolf would not, however, same with a fox and a lizard or a cat and a snake, or any combination of those mentioned in this sentence.

Sollux said:
@ 123easy I suppose we just have to wait until the verdict comes back as to how these tags should operate.
can you imply certain tags to make them automatically add to a pool? That would basically fix the problems I have with adding eeveelutions all into a pool and updating it frequently.
though if its decided you need multiple eeveelutions to be there for the tag I still stand by character_set.

Eeveelutions if multiples of them is required in the image is sufficient. Same goes for CMC (though that has more requirements, as detailed in that thread, since it's not a natural grouping qualified by merely existing).

As for implying tags to pools- No clue.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
How are you going to define potential of impregnation? We're talking about the world of furries - hybrids of other animals and humans. How are you going to decide whether two characters can breed or not?

I noticed that there's already a breeding tag. Some of those images are about pokemon breeding (daycare) or artificial insemination, while some images would fall under the proposed breeding_pair tag. Such as:
post #414477 post #372140 post #188027

But yeah, I agree that it'd be difficult to decide where to draw the line. Well, I suppose we could assume that if two creatures can be tagged as the same species based on TWYS, then they're able to breed?

In any case, um, I'm sorry for bringing this up while the main topic was still being discussed. Maybe this breeding talk should be moved to a new thread?

@Genjar,
@123easy,

Just remember that there is already existing interspecies tag. And IMO this tag idea is rather unclear. But yeah, discussion about this tag should be in separate thread.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
@Genjar,
@123easy,

Just remember that there is already existing interspecies tag. And IMO this tag idea is rather unclear. But yeah, discussion about this tag should be in separate thread.

Interspecies is just two beings of different species going at it. Also, started up a new topic so we can continue it over there.