Danbooru

[BUR] Pokemon Generation Tags

Posted under Tags

The bulk update request #2346 is pending approval.

Reason: I checked and this seems to be the accepted form of tagging with a wide variety of taggers, and around a 95-100% tagging coverage for most pokemon tags. This will just make it official.

I think we usually don't do character -> general implications, right? Apparently too many implications could be a strain on the server or something. But still, we have a few character -> general implications:

These Pokémon implications (like bulbasaur -> gen_1_pokemon) look mostly fine to me, unless we have some rule against these kinds of implications. They could also be replaced by a mass update, just to make sure all posts have their correct Pokémon generation tags.

But, if we do allow all these implications, I'm not very happy with the Pokémon forms implying the generations directly (like oricorio_(baile) implying gen_7_pokemon). The Pokémon forms could imply the standard form, which then would imply the generation.

Current BUR:
create implication oricorio -> gen_7_pokemon
create implication oricorio_(baile) -> gen_7_pokemon
create implication oricorio_(pa'u) -> gen_7_pokemon
create implication oricorio_(pom-pom) -> gen_7_pokemon
create implication oricorio_(sensu) -> gen_7_pokemon

Suggested change:
create implication oricorio -> gen_7_pokemon
create implication oricorio_(baile) -> oricorio
create implication oricorio_(pa'u) -> oricorio
create implication oricorio_(pom-pom) -> oricorio
create implication oricorio_(sensu) -> oricorio

Danielx21 said:

But, if we do allow all these implications, I'm not very happy with the Pokémon forms implying the generations directly (like oricorio_(baile) implying gen_7_pokemon). The Pokémon forms could imply the standard form, which then would imply the generation.

That's fine. Those Pokemon form implications didn't currently exist, which is why I didn't use them or account for them.

I went ahead and updated it. It could probably use a second set of eyes though. Feel free for anyone to look it over an update it if needed.

I disagree with the gen_* implication, mainly for one reason: *_(cosplay) posts would get the generation tags as well, which is not a tag I think belongs to cosplay-only posts.

nonamethanks said:

I disagree with the gen_* implication, mainly for one reason: *_(cosplay) posts would get the generation tags as well, which is not a tag I think belongs to cosplay-only posts.

Well, yeah, that's what I was thinking, in that it would be much like unto the pokemon_(creature) tag. Yet from checking things out, the generation tags instead having something like close to 100% coverage, so they're currently being treated as implicated.

However, if the consensus is to treat them like the creature tag, then a heck of a lot of tag gardening needs to be done. It would be much even more then when adding the pokemon_(creature) tag, as I find that it's often easier to add a tag then to subtract one. Regardless, if that's the case, then I would be willing to pitch in to get it done.

nonamethanks said:

I disagree with the gen_* implication, mainly for one reason: *_(cosplay) posts would get the generation tags as well, which is not a tag I think belongs to cosplay-only posts.

A similar complaint I can imagine is how Pokémon-shaped objects (for instance, a balloon with Pikachu's face and ears) receive their character tags. Even if there aren't any actual gen_1_pokemon Pokémon in this post, it would still get tagged as such. However the same argument could be made that, because there are no actual Pikachu in such an image, it shouldn't even get the pikachu tag. It seems that people are fine with tagging a Pokémon's design even if the actual physical Pokémon is absent, so I think it's reasonable to assume most people searching won't have a problem with gen_x_pokemon implications. There is the conceivable scenario of only wanting to search for posts with actual Pokémon in them from a certain generation, but considering that we have the pokemon_(creature) tag this issue can easily be remedied by including that in the search.

In fact, having these implications actually sort of allows for the ability to search for Pokémon-themed objects (clocks, bags, clothing items etc.) with the search ~gen_1_pokemon ~gen_2_pokemon ~gen_3_pokemon ~gen_4_pokemon ~gen_5_pokemon ~gen_6_pokemon ~gen_7_pokemon ~gen_8_pokemon -pokemon_(creature) -personification -cosplay. It's not perfect as it will include posts featuring imagery of Pokémon (such as photos and paintings) and miss posts featuring both a Pokémon-themed object and the Pokémon it was based on, but without these implications the only way to search for this would be by using each individual Pokémon's character tag instead of the generation tags (which I'm pretty sure is impossible for anyone except evazion and albert).
Edit: This might be a moot point because when I try to use this search Danbooru keeps breaking.

I support these implications.

Updated

nonamethanks said:

I disagree with the gen_* implication, mainly for one reason: *_(cosplay) posts would get the generation tags as well, which is not a tag I think belongs to cosplay-only posts.

Actually, the Pokémon gen tags were made with the specific intent to use with cosplays, dolls, and anything else of that sort. We might want to search things like gen_1_pokemon cosplay (which would be a list of cosplays of Generation 1 Pokémon). Please read the description of gen_1_pokemon, which is the same as gen_2_pokemon, gen_3_pokemon, etc. It does mention cosplays. These tags were discussed in topic #15030. One of the topics discussed there was the use with cosplays and dolls.

Updated

BrokenEagle98 said:

That's fine. Those Pokemon form implications didn't currently exist, which is why I didn't use them or account for them.

I went ahead and updated it. It could probably use a second set of eyes though. Feel free for anyone to look it over an update it if needed.

That's fine, thank you. I removed giratina_(origin) and giratina_(altered) from the list because these implications were recently approved in topic #16628.

  • 1