Frankly all this topic is telling me is that those pools need to be nuked, because they will be invariably filled up with off-topic posts.
Posted under Tags
War6t2 said:
Ye piplub was one of the two aforementioned non flying birds. As for what both you and vigil said, we talked earlier about how it's harder to directly show the flying type and it would be linked to themes of "airyness" and birdlikeness. I think focusing "bird likeness" can be one way of showing a flying type theme given how tightly bird like traits are tied with themes of flight in fiction (The flying type was litterally called the bird type at first), or things like this for driftloon post #898740.
Them behaving like birds can be one way sure, but it isn't bird type and shouldn't be conflate with it list for anyone else who cares. We've got bugs like ledyba, fish like mantine, mammals like emolga, and mythological beings like tornadus.
Most of the creatures in the type are bugs or birds, and I think the better distinguishing feature would be the sky itself post #3910246 is a pretty good flying bug.
nonamethanks said:
Frankly all this topic is telling me is that those pools need to be nuked, because they will be invariably filled up with off-topic posts.
Maybe, but it'd be literally impossible to do a general search of x_type otherwise. I do see value in having pools that broadly focus on this aspect.
zetsubousensei said:
Them behaving like birds can be one way sure, but it isn't bird type and shouldn't be conflate with it list for anyone else who cares. We've got bugs like ledyba, fish like mantine, mammals like emolga, and mythological beings like tornadus.
Most of the creatures in the type are bugs or birds, and I think the better distinguishing feature would be the sky itself post #3910246 is a pretty good flying bug.
Maybe, but it'd be literally impossible to do a general search of x_type otherwise. I do see value in having pools that broadly focus on this aspect.
If not the sky itself then a focus on "wind and air" and aerial acrobatics movements post #6970906 and context clues (yes I know this one has the sky as well) post #641885 or the rare time flying type attacks are actually visible post #6202626.
nonamethanks said:
Frankly all this topic is telling me is that those pools need to be nuked, because they will be invariably filled up with off-topic posts.
What were discussing here is edge cases of the "least visible" pool. Most posts will be collections of pokemon of that type and the type much easier to convey post #611586 post #1169872.
War6t2 said:
Did you mean https://danbooru.donmai.us/posts/6418852?
What were discussing here is edge cases of the "least visible" pool. Most posts will be collections of pokemon of that type and the type much easier to convey post #611586 post #1169872.
A discussion centered solely around edge cases is a problematic direction imo. If we really have to ask ourselves "Does this fit?" then it probably shouldn't be in the pool; if we're literally calling them "edge cases" then they're probably not the best fits. Every "yes" to an edge case is just more ambiguity on where the line is, and then we're right back where we started a few months from now when people think "birds" is good enough.
I'm opposed to nuking the pools in general, however I'm not opposed to just doing away with the "emphasis on type specific abilities / attributes" condition entirely
and instead I think the pools should only be obvious cases of multiple pokemon of a specific type. i.e., only posts like post #7180631 (ghost), post #7364735 (water), post #7348969 (water)
this would mostly require renaming the title (something like Pokemon - Groups of Water Types), omitting the 2nd sentence in each description, and slightly re-wording the first sentence.
edit: I wouldn't even mind helping slowly gardening (removing) all the ones that don't fit this simple criteria, if this approach is agreed on
Updated
nonamethanks said:
Frankly all this topic is telling me is that those pools need to be nuked, because they will be invariably filled up with off-topic posts.
I said nearly as much two months ago when we nuked the gym leader and elite four pools.
c_spl said:
I'm opposed to nuking the pools in general, however I'm not opposed to just doing away with the "emphasis on type specific abilities / attributes" condition entirely
and instead I think the pools should only be obvious cases of multiple pokemon of a specific type. i.e., only posts like post #7180631 (ghost), post #7364735 (water), post #7348969 (water)
this would mostly require renaming the title (something like Pokemon - Groups of Water Types), omitting the 2nd sentence in each description, and slightly re-wording the first sentence.
edit: I wouldn't even mind helping slowly gardening (removing) all the ones that don't fit this simple criteria, if this approach is agreed on
I'm not entirely against the pools existing because there are going to be major images celebrating specific types as a central theme, that Ghost example being a good one. But, as you can see, all it takes is one person deciding to mass pool Charizard into Fire and Flying to ruin them. And that's what happened a few months ago. But, because it's a pool, it's far less likely to be noticed and gardened.
Veraducks said:
I said nearly as much two months ago when we nuked the gym leader and elite four pools.
I'm not entirely against the pools existing because there are going to be major images celebrating specific types as a central theme, that Ghost example being a good one. But, as you can see, all it takes is one person deciding to mass pool Charizard into Fire and Flying to ruin them. And that's what happened a few months ago. But, because it's a pool, it's far less likely to be noticed and gardened.
I don't mind keeping an eye on the pools for gardening purposes, btw. I've been un-pooling a lot of solo pokemon pics from them recently.
The_Bob said:
I don't mind keeping an eye on the pools for gardening purposes, btw. I've been un-pooling a lot of solo pokemon pics from them recently.
Same here.
c_spl said:
I'm opposed to nuking the pools in general, however I'm not opposed to just doing away with the "emphasis on type specific abilities / attributes" condition entirely
and instead I think the pools should only be obvious cases of multiple pokemon of a specific type. i.e., only posts like post #7180631 (ghost), post #7364735 (water), post #7348969 (water)
this would mostly require renaming the title (something like Pokemon - Groups of Water Types), omitting the 2nd sentence in each description, and slightly re-wording the first sentence.
edit: I wouldn't even mind helping slowly gardening (removing) all the ones that don't fit this simple criteria, if this approach is agreed on
Solo posts are definitely possible though like post #1169872 for fire. I think the better wording helps.