Several copyright -> series implications

BUR #4797 has been approved by @Hillside_Moose.

create implication pokemon_bdsp -> pokemon_(game)
create implication pokemon_legends:_arceus -> pokemon_(game)
create implication splatoon_3 -> splatoon_(series)
create implication idolmaster_poplinks -> idolmaster
create implication idolmaster_starlit_season -> idolmaster
create implication evangelion:_3.0+1.0_thrice_upon_a_time -> rebuild_of_evangelion

Most of this is for upcoming stuff, only Poplinks is out.

(I was gonna do this for Guilty Gear X, XX, 2 -> Guilty Gear as well, should I?)

I have to question pokemon_bdsp getting its own tag, much less an implication. Aside from some gremlin memes due to the horrifying chibi overworld models, so far it looks to be the exact same game as the original DPPT. At least ORAS got characters redesigned, and LGPE got completely new protagonists and rival with Chase/Elaine and Trace.

I agree with HM. I don't think that pokemon bdsp needs a own tag, as you can't really tell the difference, if it's not for the chibi. I couldn't tell, that post #4381926 is from bdsp, if not for the source. I don't think that anyone would bat an eye, if it were tagged under diamond and pearl.
I think it would be better to create a character tag for the new chibi Dawn.

Guaro said:

I think it would be better to create a character tag for the new chibi Dawn.

Hold up, if you can tell that the character is chibi Dawn from bdsp vs a generic chibified Dawn, then it needs the right copyright tag too.

Also we don't know yet how the games will differ, given that they haven't been released yet, so I don't think this is the right time to think about nuking the tags.

nonamethanks said:

Hold up, if you can tell that the character is chibi Dawn from bdsp vs a generic chibified Dawn, then it needs the right copyright tag too.

Yeah, I get that and maybe there will come more, but I don't think that the pokemons under that tag should be tagged with bdsp, if there is no further indication that they're from that new game, when they could also come from diamond and pearl.
The problem is, that it will just end like Breath of the wild 2, where you can only tell that it's the new game, because Zelda has short hair. The copyright will be filled with only one character.
But I get the point, that the character itself should be tagged under the correct copyright.

Guaro said:

Yeah, I get that and maybe there will come more, but I don't think that the pokemons under that tag should be tagged with bdsp, if there is no further indication that they're from that new game, when they could also come from diamond and pearl.
The problem is, that it will just end like Breath of the wild 2, where you can only tell that it's the new game, because Zelda has short hair. The copyright will be filled with only one character.
But I get the point, that the character itself should be tagged under the correct copyright.

I'll argue those specific pokemon posts should be tagged with the right copyright, because it's official art. Imagine someone trying to search for official/promotional bdsp art and not being able to because "it looks too generic". It makes us look stupid.

nonamethanks said:

Hold up, if you can tell that the character is chibi Dawn from bdsp vs a generic chibified Dawn, then it needs the right copyright tag too.

Thing is, the game's not exclusively chibi. There are normal-proportions battle models, as seen with post #4381911. Everyone's memeing on the chibi models because the chibi/normal juxtaposition is extremely jarring.

Also we don't know yet how the games will differ, given that they haven't been released yet, so I don't think this is the right time to think about nuking the tags.

We can keep it for now since excitement is high and a new surge of fanart is incoming. If nothing new happens in the remakes, we'll have to revisit aliasing BDSP to DPPT in order to keep everything under one umbrella.

Alternatively, we could implicate pokemon_bdsp -> pokemon_dppt instead of pokemon_(game) for now.

I do think something will inevitably come up so that BDSP will have something more substantial to identify it (or at least I hope so), but I can remove it for now… although, if we're going to revisit it anyway, implying it to DPPT could work for the time being too? Since we're not the only ones wondering if the two pairs are different it might be better, even temporarily, but on the other hand we don't do this with any other remakes. I think either way is fine.

nonamethanks said:

I'll argue those specific pokemon posts should be tagged with the right copyright, because it's official art. Imagine someone trying to search for official/promotional bdsp art and not being able to because "it looks too generic". It makes us look stupid.

Ah, I didn't see this as official art, that's makes more sense. But my point still stands, that there should be something referring to the game, when using the specific copyright tag.

DreamFromTheLayer said:

Since we're not the only ones wondering if the two pairs are different it might be better, even temporarily, but on the other hand we don't do this with any other remakes.

Like I said, there's no character redesigns or new characters shown, which is why I brought up the idea in the first place. Implicating the remake to the old game is more for pragmatism's sake, so you don't have identical Dawn art being arbitrarily split into two copyright umbrellas.

Guaro said:

Ah, I didn't see this as official art, that's makes more sense. But my point still stands, that there should be something referring to the game, when using the specific copyright tag.

On that note, there is a handful of regular Pyra and Mythra posts that were tagged as smash bros say post #4375525, so some see recent news that prompted the artist to draw enough to justify the tag as long as the artist states that in the commentary or source. Not that I have any strong opinion about it but this is definitely not the first instance of fringe copyright tagging

I mostly agree with nnt here regarding Pokemon BDSP. Personally, I'd prefer we just went ahead with the Pokemon (game) implication for the time being, since we don't know the full scope of the game, and reevaluate the topic of merging them later down the road when we have more information.

ljhkhjkghjybtvhyt said:

On that note, there is a handful of regular Pyra and Mythra posts that were tagged as smash bros say post #4375525, so some see recent news that prompted the artist to draw enough to justify the tag as long as the artist states that in the commentary or source. Not that I have any strong opinion about it but this is definitely not the first instance of fringe copyright tagging

Yeah, I saw this happen with post #4382494. I don't see any reference to Pokemon Legends: Arceus in it, but it gets the tag because there's a slight reference in the commentary?

Obstetrics said:

Yeah, I saw this happen with post #4382494. I don't see any reference to Pokemon Legends: Arceus in it, but it gets the tag because there's a slight reference in the commentary?

The clothes are a pretty big clue. Pokemon Legends is set in Feudal Japan Sinnoh, and the protags look identical to Lucas and Dawn and are most likely their ancestors. People are already hoping for Cynthia's ancestor to make an appearance.

I guess we'll treat pokemon_bdsp as its own game for now, and reevaluate it later when it's released.

The bulk update request #4797 (forum #181333) has been approved by @Hillside_Moose.

Guaro said:

I think it would be better to create a character tag for the new chibi Dawn.

This reminds me of the older tags like red_(pokemon)_(remake) (meaning Red from FRLG, as opposed to Red from other games).

I would prefer simply searching dawn_(pokemon) pokemon_bdsp, or even dawn_(pokemon) chibi. Looks like all characters have chibi models too (Barry, Lass, etc.) so it's not something exclusive to Dawn anyway.