Should we implicate Pokemons?

@jxh2154: The rule about not implicating characters to...

2012-10-13T21:08:14-04:00

The rule about not implicating characters to copyrights stands, yes. Even going by priority would cause problems, because then we would have inconsistency - some characters would get their copyrights automatically, most would not, and the vast majority of taggers would never know which is which. It also wouldn't help with filling in commonly missed copyrights because 1) there aren't many of those and 2) if we do the big ones first, well, those are the ones everyone knows already.

There are just too many issues with it for too little benefit.

As for implicating something like meowth to cat, as others have said, it needs to be manual if done at all. Exceptions (like personifications and such) would make an implication incorrect.

@Serlo: I really don't agree with that definition. If I...

2012-10-11T07:08:31-04:00

I really don't agree with that definition. If I search for cat, I want to find pictures of living cats. I don't want to have to add animal -stuffed_animal -pokemon everywhere.

If it's a pokemon that looks like a cat, tag cat and cat-whatever-mon. There's nothing left that needs implicating here if we're not going to implicate characters to copyrights.

@Danielx21: > Hillside_Moose said: > I would tag the animal...

2012-10-11T05:17:51-04:00

Hillside_Moose said:
I would tag the animal if they greatly resemble the real life animal, such as post #446270 or post #308170.

cat says:

"This tag can also be used with cat shaped stuffed_animals, cat demons/monsters, and bodiless cat heads."

Apparently, with "cat demons/monsters" included, all instances os Skitty and Meowth (except personifications, cosplays and whatnot) qualify to be tagged cat, then, not just the realistic ones.

However, if they greatly resemble the real life animal, then I suppose they get a second tag: realistic. (Both posts you mentioned were tagged realistic already.)

@Hillside_Moose: I would tag the animal if they greatly resemble...

2012-10-10T19:54:52-04:00

I would tag the animal if they greatly resemble the real life animal, such as post #446270 or post #308170.

@ShadowbladeEdge: As long as they actually resemble them I suppose.

2012-10-10T06:47:04-04:00

As long as they actually resemble them I suppose.

@ion288: OK, no implication. Should we tag pokemons...

2012-10-10T06:25:36-04:00

OK, no implication. Should we tag pokemons after the animals they resemble?

@ShadowbladeEdge: I don't know why this is still be talked about....

2012-10-10T06:17:03-04:00

I don't know why this is still be talked about. Log said why this won't happen, and that stuff continues to be true.

To make it simple, the answer is no, it will always be no in all cases.

@EMUltra3: During the time when fate/stay_night was the...

2012-10-09T23:15:28-04:00

During the time when fate/stay_night was the only Fate IP at the time, it would have worked. Once there were spin-off and the such, it gets expanded and the alias removed or added to a new _(series) based tag. It doesn't matter if it leaves the old copyright tag there, since anything made before that time would have HAD to belongs to that copyright anyways.

If all else fails, then you could always just alias the safe characters who's copytag already encompasses a series; touhou and vocaloid are easy examples.

@NWF_Renim: Personally I'd be against implication attempts...

2012-10-09T21:21:06-04:00

Personally I'd be against implication attempts like this. We've had some major tag changes this year, such as the creation of the fate_(series) and lyrical_nanoha tags, that show perfectly well why implication is a bad idea. Had we initially done implications, the implications would have been directed to the fate/stay_night or mahou_shoujo_lyrical_nanoha tags, so later on when these new broader tags were made we'd now have had all these additional implications that would require reshuffling.

We also run into cases where a new series comes in and now we have characters that share the names of characters from other series. The most common solution we've been using of late when that happens is to qualify both character tags, which would mean if we had implications, we'd have to again reshuffle them.

@EMUltra3: > Log said: > Primarily it's the sheer number...

2012-10-09T20:45:46-04:00

Log said:
Primarily it's the sheer number of characters but other major issues are characters that belong to no one copyright (Fate/Tsukihime characters), the look of a character is not defined by anything but the artist, copyrights can change, and the strain it would put on the system having even a fraction of 55500 additional implications. Not to mention the strain it would put on jxh verifying all of them.

Thankfully we did add the fate_(series) tag at least. As Danielx21 mentioned, if a character can't fit strictly one (or more) copyright, then it because manual.

It wouldn't be necessary to implicate every single character to their respective copyright, you could simply add them by priority (ie post count).

@Log: Primarily it's the sheer number of characters...

2012-10-09T17:25:49-04:00

Primarily it's the sheer number of characters but other major issues are characters that belong to no one copyright (Fate/Tsukihime characters), the look of a character is not defined by anything but the artist, copyrights can change, and the strain it would put on the system having even a fraction of 55500 additional implications. Not to mention the strain it would put on jxh verifying all of them.

@Danielx21: > Serlo said: > As much as I'm surprised that...

2012-10-09T12:17:50-04:00

Serlo said:
As much as I'm surprised that there are no character implications, if that is the case, then the reason will be because characters can change copyright.

But most characters don't change copyright. Even considering that some do, we could still safely create dozens of thousands of implications for those who don't. (e.g., implicating kirisame_marisa -> touhou, and so on)

And, of course, when one character does change copyright, (which is rare) we can remove the implication and go back to tagging the copyrights manually.

In spite of that, I can think of a good reason for not having character implications: It's because we the taggers are already trained to place all the characters and copyrights always, at the very least, so lack of copyright tags is not an issue.

@Serlo: > ROMaster2 said: > I'm assuming it's due to...

2012-10-09T11:09:01-04:00

ROMaster2 said:
I'm assuming it's due to the sheer amount of characters on the site?

As much as I'm surprised that there are no character implications, if that is the case, then the reason will be because characters can change copyright.

If danbooru used an tag updating algorithm that slowed with too many implications and aliases, it would've ground to a halt ages ago.

@EMUltra3: Doesn't seem very practical, honestly.

2012-10-09T11:02:58-04:00

Doesn't seem very practical, honestly.

@Log: We don't implicate characters to anything as a...

2012-10-08T19:10:08-04:00

We don't implicate characters to anything as a matter of policy anyways. There's a couple of exceptions but they're character -> character implications (the Asukas and a couple others I don't recall off the top of my head.)

@jjj14: Consider mechanizations, objectifications, and...

2012-10-08T18:45:12-04:00

Consider mechanizations, objectifications, and pool #4184 as well.

@Danielx21: The tag cat does apply to all meowth posts,...

2012-10-08T14:24:58-04:00

The tag cat does apply to all meowth posts, AFAICT...

Except personifications.
post #728218 is a catgirl rather than a cat.

@ion288: Should we implicate Pokemons that looks like...

2012-10-08T14:15:06-04:00

Should we implicate Pokemons that looks like animals to those animals? Such as ho-oh to bird or meowth to cat? Its obviously what someone that doesn't know they are pokemons will see.