Nuke pokephilia

BUR #10983 has been rejected.

nuke pokephilia

All this tag does is fetch a wide variety of posts from multiple fetishes. Searching it will give you pairings with humanlike Pokémon such as Gardevoir and Lopunny, straight-up bestiality with Pokémon like Rapidash and Gastrodon, and whatever the hell this is. All of these results are from the same single-tag search. Few users are going to be interested in all of these fetishes, and those who are would likely find it inconvenient to search for them all at once.

One could argue pokephilia is effective for blacklisting purposes, but this argument falls flat when you consider that other, already existing tags such as bestiality, furry_with_non-furry and interspecies already do this job with more granularity, plus they actually extend beyond this specific copyright. Someone trying to blacklist humans having sex with horses does not care if the horse is a Pokémon.

This feels like a tag that only exists because other boorus use it - however, unlike these other boorus, we have a robust tagging system in place that already allows for the individual searching of the multiple fetishes it encompasses. Beyond being an inferior version of other, more specific tags, pokephilia is nothing but tag padding.

ref topic #20434, specifically forum #206897 for evazion's response.

AngryZapdos said:
This feels like a tag that only exists because other boorus use it - however, unlike these other boorus, we have a robust tagging system in place that already allows for the individual searching of the multiple fetishes it encompasses. Beyond being an inferior version of other, more specific tags, pokephilia is nothing but tag padding.

The "other boorus" point is especially pertinent because that was the opening reason for the tag's creation.

But it should be noted that our usage of it is already different. Other boorus use the tag on virtually anything that would get a non-human pokémon chartag. Solo images, personifications, etc. pool #16659 often gets tagged poképhilia on other boorus.

But this isn't a tag that exists solely because it exists in other boorus. My reasoning for the tag's utility in forum #205012.

mongirlfan said:

But this isn't a tag that exists solely because it exists in other boorus. My reasoning for the tag's utility in forum #205012.

The rest of your points are addressed in the BUR post. I was zeroing in on one aspect.

Just because I don't respond point-by-point doesn't mean I think you only had one point.

Veradux said:

The rest of your points are addressed in the BUR post. I was zeroing in on one aspect.

Just because I don't respond point-by-point doesn't mean I think you only had one point.

My point is that interspecies + bestiality doesn't cover all of it, that there are users who might be interested in searching it with a simple tag instead of multiple combinations of different tags, and that it's a popular enough concept for searchability.

mongirlfan said:

My point is that interspecies + bestiality doesn't cover all of it, that there are users who might be interested in searching it with a simple tag instead of multiple combinations of different tags, and that it's a popular enough concept for searchability.

Post count for pokephilia -interspecies -bestiality: 9

Of those 9, four are imminent bestiality, three are girls sitting on a pokemon (is that even pokephilia?), and the remaining two are probably bestiality of some sort.

pokemon_(creature) is:nsfw is significantly more functional for finding porn of pokémon. Pokephilia is used on other sites for both solo pictures and mating_(animal) pictures of 'mon. And, through more searching with weird tags that I have blacklisted than I care to admit, there's more posts missing from pokephilia than there are posts not covered but interspecies and bestiality.

In a conversation on the Discord, someone stated that they're ok with composite tags when there's no alternative and it takes at least three tags. Poképhilia may seem to be that on first glance, but pokemon_(creature) is:nsfw is already that alternative. is:nsfw can be swapped to is:sfw and rating searches don't count against a Member's tag limit.

Veradux said:

Post count for pokephilia -interspecies -bestiality: 9

Of those 9, four are imminent bestiality, three are girls sitting on a pokemon (is that even pokephilia?), and the remaining two are probably bestiality of some sort.

That's a surprising considering how many pokemon aren't humanoid or animal-like. I fint it questionable that something like post #530253 gets tagged as bestiality despite magnemite not looking animal-like (or even organic).

Veradux said:
pokemon_(creature) is:nsfw is significantly more functional for finding porn of pokémon. Pokephilia is used on other sites for both solo pictures and mating_(animal) pictures of 'mon. And, through more searching with weird tags that I have blacklisted than I care to admit, there's more posts missing from pokephilia than there are posts not covered but interspecies and bestiality.

In a conversation on the Discord, someone stated that they're ok with composite tags when there's no alternative and it takes at least three tags. Poképhilia may seem to be that on first glance, but pokemon_(creature) is:nsfw is already that alternative. is:nsfw can be swapped to is:sfw and rating searches don't count against a Member's tag limit.

pokemon_(creature) is:nsfw will also have solo, multiple views, mating (animal) other than what pokephilia is for so I don't consider it a good replacement for the tag. Made a little research and I don't see any relevant booru using it for solo/mating pictures like the way you're describing.

mongirlfan said:

That's a surprising considering how many pokemon aren't humanoid or animal-like. I fint it questionable that something like post #530253 gets tagged as bestiality despite magnemite not looking animal-like (or even organic).

mecha_on_girl and robot_sex allow robots and might both apply to that post.

mongirlfan said:

That's a surprising considering how many pokemon aren't humanoid or animal-like. I fint it questionable that something like post #530253 gets tagged as bestiality despite magnemite not looking animal-like (or even organic).

That's because danbooru uses bestiality to refer to sex between a humanoid and almost anything that isn't humanoid. I've never been very fond of this, as it's contrary to the real world definition, and I doubt anyone that comes here looking for bestiality porn is looking for things like post #530253.

blindVigil said:

That's because danbooru uses bestiality to refer to sex between a humanoid and almost anything that isn't humanoid. I've never been very fond of this, as it's contrary to the real world definition, and I doubt anyone that comes here looking for bestiality porn is looking for things like post #530253.

To be fair, I doubt people searching for pokephilia are looking for that either.

Veradux said:

To be fair, I doubt people searching for pokephilia are looking for that either.

And yet pokephilia is still a better tag for it than bestiality, I'm not sure who would be looking for it if not someone searching for pokephilia.

I really don't get the confusion about the magnemite, seems like a clear cut case of sex with machinery to me.

I think the tag is harmless myself. We have a series filled with 898 different creatures and clear interest in having a catch all for them, why remove functionality for the sake of making things pointlessly harder?

RingyThingy said:

I really don't get the confusion about the magnemite, seems like a clear cut case of sex with machinery to me.

I think the tag is harmless myself. We have a series filled with 898 different creatures and clear interest in having a catch all for them, why remove functionality for the sake of making things pointlessly harder?

Because it's literally just a copyright-specific bestiality or interspecies tag. This is contrary to how we handle most of the rest of the site.

Talulah said:

Because it's literally just a copyright-specific bestiality or interspecies tag. This is contrary to how we handle most of the rest of the site.

Considering that it takes gold to get those two tags plus Pokemon, I can't support this regardless. People are making this out to be a "Well it has to be either/or", but the main focus on the tag is the creatures involved: Pokemon with humans. I see no reason to punish them because of a weird obsession with reducing tag count.

RingyThingy said:

Considering that it takes gold to get those two tags plus Pokemon, I can't support this regardless. People are making this out to be a "Well it has to be either/or", but the main focus on the tag is the creatures involved: Pokemon with humans. I see no reason to punish them because of a weird obsession with reducing tag count.

It's not reducing tag count as it is reducing padding. Just like when we nuked gen 1 pokemon and its ilk. Do you support the creation of a "digimon and humans" tag via something like "digiphilia"?

Further, the member search limit is not a reason to create composite tags. If that were the case we'd have an umbrella tag for ~gigantic_breasts ~huge_breasts ~large_breasts.

Veradux said:

It's not reducing tag count as it is reducing padding. Just like when we nuked gen 1 pokemon and its ilk. Do you support the creation of a "digimon and humans" tag via something like "digiphilia"?

Further, the member search limit is not a reason to create composite tags. If that were the case we'd have an umbrella tag for ~gigantic_breasts ~huge_breasts ~large_breasts.

See, I can understand the whole gen 1 nuke thing, as I honestly don't see the point of distinguishing pokemon through generation. They are in basically all of them (barring any of that drama back during that no global dex thingy) and it requires an advanced amount of information that requires you to dive into the series deeper to know. It's sort of like canon tagging at that point, as the amount of people who are going to have a specific generation memorized is rather niche at best.

The difference is, this isn't a case where you need advanced knowledge to use the tag. As long as you know it is a pokemon with a human, the tag applies.

If there was a sudden spike in people who really wanted a digimon/human tag, I wouldn't really be against it either. My argument comes from a place of use, not a specific care of the tag itself. I dislike the notion of destroying tags without a clear and simple method of using the contents of those tags otherwise, as having to build a frankensteins monster of a search full of exclusions and inclusions isn't exactly intuitive. Doubly so when it only applies to a specific fandom and thus isn't being spread to random images from other series without care.

Perhaps its my definition of padding that leads to this disconnect between our respective logic, but I see tag padding as tags that serve no other purpose other than the sake of adding additional tags to a list. Things like tagging each individually named bone in a picture of a skeleton. Not "This one tag that has a very specific use can be technically recreated if you try hard enough with exact searching, therefore lets nuke it."

There is a clear and somewhat reasonable desire for a tag that is specific to Pokemon X human to exist, so what is the harm here? Feels weird to be able to say "We tag random memes that die out in a month or two, but an actively used term that people like? Yeah, no, its gone. Learn your fetishes people."

This bulk update request is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 45 days.

The bulk update request #10983 (forum #215592) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.