Donmai

Tag suggestion: use actual generation tags for Pokémon species, not game tags

Posted under Tags

Danielx21

Older discussions: topic #8881 (2013), topic #13173 (2016).

Apparently we sometimes use Pokémon game tags to specify in which generation a Pokémon was introduced.

Examples:

  • post #2435651 is a Tentacruel and hence tagged pokemon_rgby.
  • post #1202506 is a Celebi and hence tagged pokemon_gsc.
  • post #2198367 is a Victini and hence tagged pokemon_bw.
  • post #2767077 is a Scyther, a Leavanny and a Lurantis and hence tagged pokemon_rgby, pokemon_bw and pokemon_sm.

But this system currently has a few problems:

  • I didn't actually count, but it seems most Pokémon are NOT currently tagged by game. (which could be fixed by populating game tags, but see the next item)
  • Related to the above, it seems when a post is clearly about the anime or manga, it shouldn't get a game tag.
    • Therefore, post #2295462 is about Blue (from manga Pokémon Special) and her Jigglypuff, so the Jiggly can't get the tag pokemon_rgby.
    • And post #311066 is about Musashi (from anime) and two of her Pokémon from different generations, so the Pokémon can't get the tags pokemon_rgby and pokemon_rse.
    • If you were able to crop the trainers away from these images and upload new versions with only the Pokémon, it would be another story -- you would be able to use the game tags for obvious reasons.
  • It's not technically correct to use just pokemon_gsc for, say, a Sentret. Gold & Silver are only the first games the Sentret was introduced. But Sentret is easily found in the HGSS too, yet it apparently doesn't get the pokemon_hgss tag. In fact, it seems you can even find a Sentret in FRLG, DPPt, Black... You get the idea. Maybe that's why the Pokémon game tags are underpopulated with Pokémon species -- because maybe populating them this way does not always seem quite right.

Maybe we could use tags like these below. It doesn't have to be these exact names, any name that makes sense is fine.

Some important points:

  • In my opinion, not only a creature, but a personification or doll should be able to get these tags too. Therefore, post #1342254 (a gijinka of Breloom) would be tagged generation_3_pokemon, unlike pokemon_(creature).
  • In my opinion, Shiny, Mega, Primal and Alolan forms should get the generation tag where the normal form was introduced.
    • Caterpie is from Generation 1, so a Shiny Caterpie would be tagged generation_1_pokemon all the same. It doesn't matter that Shiny Pokémon were introduced in Generation 2.
    • A post with Mega Gardevoir would be tagged generation_3_pokemon.
    • A post with Alolan Marowak would be tagged generation_1_pokemon.
  • Relatedly, a female (heart-tailed) Pikachu would be tagged generation_1_pokemon. Pikachu was introduced in Generation 1. The gender differences were introduced in Generation 4, but that does not matter for the suggested tags.
  • Also relatedly, a "?"-Unown would be tagged generation_2_pokemon. Unown was introduced in Generation 2. The "!" and "?" forms were introduced in Generation 3, but that does not matter for the suggested tags.
  • I prefer generation_1_pokemon instead of generation_1 (the latter was suggested in topic #8881) because I want to be specific: Meowth is literally a "Generation 1 Pokémon". If we used just generation_1, it could encompass all sorts of messy things: Red is a Generation 1 trainer, Kanto is a Generation 1 place, Swords Dance is a Generation 1 move, the generic Poké Ball is a Generation 1 item, etc., which are things to avoid.

I think a search like satoshi_(pokemon) generation_2_pokemon would be interesting, because you would find Satoshi with his Generation 2 Pokémon. Or you could search just generation_7_pokemon to find posts with the newest Pokémon.

If these generation tags are created, maybe it would be a good idea to REMOVE all game tags that are merely used to categorize a Pokémon (creature). For example, remove pokemon_(game) and pokemon_gsc from post #1202506 (Celebi).

Please let me know if there's anything crazy with this idea. I'm fine with making any changes to these suggestions.

Updated

Reply
Danielx21

Thank you, Provence.

An additional point not yet mentioned:

post #676782 is an image of Sentret, Furret and Kotone. It's currently tagged pokemon_hgss, NOT pokemon_gsc, certainly because Kotone is a human character from Pokémon HGSS. If Sentret and Furret were alone without Kotone, they could get the tag pokemon_gsc instead.

The current system (where game tags = generations of Pokémon species) seems unreliable for categorizing Pokémon, because it seems to be ignored whenever a human is present in the same post. Maybe it could work well only for posts with no humans, but that's only a subset of all Pokémon posts.

It's more or less like having a dog tag that can't be used if the dog is in the same post with any other animal. This crazy example of a dog tag would be forever underpopulated by design.

The suggested tags (generation_1_pokemon, generation_2_pokemon, etc.) would not have that problem.

Reply
Danielx21

Alright, a few days passed since I created this thread. Maybe I should wait some more time for feedback before implementing this project?

Current results: One person replied, and it seems like 100% support so far. ;)

I'll start to do this one of these days, if no one objects.

Quick recap:

Reply
user 525419

Elfaleon said:

I'd be okay with helping populate this if we do go through with implementation.

It would basically be running a userscript that's adding "generation_1_pokemon" to all posts ranging from bulbasaur to mew, right? That could be done very fast with Danbooru EX userscript.
Or are there any exceptions to this rule? What about charater dolls, drawings of Pokémon. Meaning all images were Pokemon_(Creature) isn't applicable.

Reply
Danielx21

Provence said:

It would basically be running a userscript that's adding "generation_1_pokemon" to all posts ranging from bulbasaur to mew, right? That could be done very fast with Danbooru EX userscript.
Or are there any exceptions to this rule? What about charater dolls, drawings of Pokémon. Meaning all images were Pokemon_(Creature) isn't applicable.

Yes, that userscript seems perfect. I never actually used it so I don't know exactly how it works, or whether I have the privilege to use it as a Builder in the first place.

If it's alright, please somebody run that script.

In my opinion, there should be no exceptions for dolls or drawings. I would be fine with using the tag generation_1_pokemon in all instances of bulbasaur, paras, mew, etc. But it seems they will NOT be implications whatsoever, right? (that is, we won't do "imply bulbasaur -> generation_1_pokemon") Apparently we don't do implications from character to general tags under any circumstances.

In the first message here, I already talked a bit a about the presence or absence of exceptions, so please read this small excerpt again:

Danielx21 said:

Addendum:

This way, you can search personification generation_2_pokemon for Gen2 personifications, or pokemon_(creature) generation_2_pokemon for Gen2 creatures.

Reply
user 525419

Danielx21 said:

Yes, that userscript seems perfect. I never actually used it so I don't know exactly how it works, or whether I have the privilege to use it as a Builder in the first place.

If it's alright, please somebody run that script.

In my opinion, there should be no exceptions for dolls or drawings. I would be fine with using the tag generation_1_pokemon in all instances of bulbasaur, paras, mew, etc. But it seems they will NOT be implications whatsoever, right? (that is, we won't do "imply bulbasaur -> generation_1_pokemon") Apparently we don't do implications from character to general tags under any circumstances.

In the first message here, I already talked a bit a about the presence or absence of exceptions, so please read this small excerpt again:

Addendum:

This way, you can search personification generation_2_pokemon for Gen2 personifications, or pokemon_(creature) generation_2_pokemon for Gen2 creatures.

The script can be found here:
about:userscripts.
It's free to anyone to use.

Personally, I'd like to hear the opinion of one of the Admins since this is a rather big tagging project. It may be done fast, but there are tons of posts that fall under this tag change.
@Hillside_Moose @NWF_Renim @Type-kun

Reply
Danielx21

Provence said:

The script can be found here:
about:userscripts.
It's free to anyone to use.

Personally, I'd like to hear the opinion of one of the Admins since this is a rather big tagging project. It may be done fast, but there are tons of posts that fall under this tag change.
@Hillside_Moose @NWF_Renim @Type-kun

Thank you for the info about userscripts. Thanks also to Elfaleon and ion288 who supported this project too.

I'd like to hear the opinions of the admins too.

The part about removing game tags may be trickier. (you know, removing pokemon_rgby and pokemon_(game) from post #2434036, a Cubone) Should this part be done manually or can it be automated in some way?

I though of doing this, but I actually found a few problems with this idea:

[idea #1] Run a userscript to remove all instances of Pokémon main game tags (pokemon_(game), pokemon_rgby ... pokemon_sm) from any posts tagged no_humans.

Problems:

  • Some posts are tagged no_humans but still need game tags because the Pokémon are wearing the clothes of their trainers, like post #1236308.
  • Other posts may reference the games in other ways, like how post #2619880 is about the style of the older games.
  • It would still miss personifications, like post #1597670, a personification of Mewtwo.

A different idea:

[idea #2] If possible (it may be too crazy or complex for the userscript, I don't know), run a userscript to remove all instances of Pokémon main game tags (pokemon_(game), pokemon_rgby ... pokemon_sm) from any posts where the only character tags are Pokémon species (bulbasaur ... marshadow), or Mega/Alolan/Primal versions thereof (mega_gardevoir, alolan_rattata, primal_kyogre).

This would remove game tags from normal Pokémon (post #2434036) and personifications (post #1597670) too. It would NOT remove game tags from posts where Pokémon wear the clothes of their trainers (post #1236308), which seems an excellent result.

There would still be a few exceptions like post #2619880 (about the game designs) - still, it seems easier to remove the game tags from all these posts this way (if possible) and then look for a few exceptions, than removing all game tags manually.

Reply
Hillside Moose

My last real involvement with the series was Pokemon Red back in the '90s and a casual playthrough of Pokemon Emerald. Aside from Gen 1, I couldn't tell you which Pokemon belongs in which gen.

If you think this system of tagging would help, then go ahead. Just realize these are an enthusiast's tags and even normal fans won't know to use it.

Reply
user 525419

Hillside_Moose said:

My last real involvement with the series was Pokemon Red back in the '90s and a casual playthrough of Pokemon Emerald. Aside from Gen 1, I couldn't tell you which Pokemon belongs in which gen.

If you think this system of tagging would help, then go ahead. Just realize these are an enthusiast's tags and even normal fans won't know to use it.

Well, that's probably also the case for the pokemon_(creature) tag.
Just making sure before adding this tag:

Those tags listed here should not imply pokemon_(creature), right?
Meaning it should be added to every image of a Bulbasaur, right @Danielx21 ?

Reply
AngryZapdos

My 2 cents:

- Alolan Pokémon should be tagged as generation 7. They're not just an alternate colour like Shiny Pokémon and they're not an alternate form like Mega Pokémon, they're actually different species.

- Not a big deal but I think "gen_x_pokemon" would be a better format; it's abbreviated kind of like the tags used for the individual games and to me it looks nicer.

Reply
Danielx21

Provence said:

Well, that's probably also the case for the pokemon_(creature) tag.
Just making sure before adding this tag:

Those tags listed here should not imply pokemon_(creature), right?
Meaning it should be added to every image of a Bulbasaur, right @Danielx21 ?

Yes, please. In my opinion, doing this would be excellent. To repeat, this would enable searches like generation_3_pokemon pokemon_(creature) (for Gen3 creatures) and generation_3_pokemon personification (for Gen3 personifications).

AngryZapdos said:

My 2 cents:

- Alolan Pokémon should be tagged as generation 7. They're not just an alternate colour like Shiny Pokémon and they're not an alternate form like Mega Pokémon, they're actually different species.

I have to disagree with you, that doesn't actually sound quite right to me. Alolan Pokémon may sometimes have different types, but they are just regional differences. It's like having an Indian Pikachu or a Chinese Pikachu or a Russian Pikachu with some small differences. What if some fanart depicts regional differences for a Kanto Pikachu and a Johto Pikachu? We would tag them generation_1_pokemon, right? (FWIW, there are regional differences between Corsola from Kanto and Johto in the Pokémon Special manga)

It seems all Alolan Marowak are Marowak, not separate Pokémon. A normal Cubone even evolves into an Alolan Marowak in Alola.

When a wild Alolan Pokémon appears, its name is just the normal Pokémon species, without "Alolan". Like this: "A wild Rattata appeared!" (not "A wild Alolan Rattata appeared!") This makes sense, because in ORAS you don't get "A wild Hoennian Wingull appeared!"

Bulbapedia, for one, uses the same Pokémon species pages for a given normal and Shiny/Alolan/Mega/Primal forms.

https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Marowak_%28Pokémon%29 (article about Marowak: normal, Shiny and Alolan)
https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Gardevoir_%28Pokémon%29 (article about Gardevoir: normal, Shiny and Mega)

Alolan Pokémon are listed in the article "Regional variant", which also includes other regional variants from manga and anime:

https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Regional_variant

For these reasons, it seems all the current Alolan Pokémon should be tagged generation_1_pokemon (not generation_7_pokemon). (Only Pokémon from the Gen 1 got Alolan forms as of yet.)

AngryZapdos said:

- Not a big deal but I think "gen_x_pokemon" would be a better format; it's abbreviated kind of like the tags used for the individual games and to me it looks nicer.

gen_1_pokemon sounds nice to me.

Updated

Reply
AngryZapdos

Danielx21 said:

I have to disagree with you, that doesn't actually sound quite right to me. Alolan Pokémon may sometimes have different types, but they are just regional differences. It's like having an Indian Pikachu or a Chinese Pikachu or a Russian Pikachu with some small differences. What if some fanart depicts regional differences for a Kanto Pikachu and a Johto Pikachu? We would tag them generation_1_pokemon, right? (FWIW, there are regional differences between Corsola from Kanto and Johto in the Pokémon Special manga)

Compared to their counterparts from other regions, Alolan Pokémon differ in type, appearance, behaviour and biology, often dramatically. They are regional variants, yes, but they're very different - enough so to be called their own species. Compare this to Pokémon such as Shellos/Gastrodon and Basculin whose regional differences are only skin-deep. They merely look different and are literally identical under the hood.

Danielx21 said:

Bulbapedia, for one, uses the same Pokémon species pages for a given normal and Shiny/Alolan/Mega/Primal forms.

https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Marowak_%28Pokémon%29 (article about Marowak: normal, Shiny and Alolan)
https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Gardevoir_%28Pokémon%29 (article about Gardevoir: normal, Shiny and Mega)

Alolan Pokémon are listed in the article "Regional variant", which also includes other regional variants from manga and anime:

https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Regional_variant

Also straight from that page:

"Prior to Generation VII, there were already certain Pokémon that had variations depending on their native geographical area, but, unlike regional variants, these Pokémon do not appear to have adapted to selective pressures; rather, their differences are purely aesthetic, with their type, moves, Abilities, height, and weight remaining the same."

In any case, I'd rather base this decision off of the actual games rather than how Bulbapedia decides to organise their wiki pages. In SM/USUM, both Marowak and Alolan Marowak have seperate Pokédex entries, as do all the other Alolan Pokémon and their regional counterparts - the games themselves consider Alolan variants to actually be different Pokémon. Again, this differs from Pokémon such as Shellos/Gastrodon and Basculin, whose entries are the same regardless of which variant is obtained.

Reply
user 525419

One should also notice that the implication request "alolan_pokemon -> pokemon" was rejected and I agree with that.
Those Pokémon are visually extremely distinct from their Kanto counterparts, even more than Mega Pokémon.

If we need tags to differ male and female Nidoran or area-specific Pokémon like Gastrodon is left open by me, but that hasn't really something to do with tagging that stuff since they appeared in the same gen.

Reply
1 2 3