Bulking up pokemon type pools

BUR #24631 has been rejected.

pool:4209 is flying.

Filtering is done via copytags:1 Chartags:1 instead of -crossover solo to account for missing tags and avoid cases where a post where focus is on a human character with a flying type pokemon faintly in the background is tagged solo.

Note this is not a complete list. Having only one character tag means no instances of flying type pokemon together. Having only one copyright tag filters out everything from mechanized pokemon that wouldn't fit to post #4863833 just things tagged with various pokemon games posts/3894409.

Please read the pools' descriptions. You're treating them like a substitute for a flying type pokemon tag and that is not what they are for. We don't need a pool masquerading as a tag, especially not a tag of the gen 1 pokemon variety.

I know another user bombarded these pools by putting them on all applicable types, but that needs to be reversed, not made worse.

Veraducks said:

Please read the pools' descriptions. You're treating them like a substitute for a flying type pokemon tag and that is not what they are for. We don't need a pool masquerading as a tag, especially not a tag of the gen 1 pokemon variety.

I know another user bombarded these pools by putting them on all applicable types, but that needs to be reversed, not made worse.

By tagging any instance of a flying type pokemon? That is not what is being done here. The description of the pool goes as follows:

Posts focusing on Flying Pokémon - their variety, their powers, their evolutions, their lives, etc.

The filtering such as only having one char tag was done to only pick up on posts where the flying type pokemon was actually the focus, not just any post with a flying type pokemon technically present in the background. This was done exactly to avoid that. "Their lives" is also pretty vague.

The sentence "posts focusing on (type) pokemon" is also copypasted for the other pools so before someone asks, no it's not reffering to the action of flying in this case.

Or are you saying that the pool should be them using flying type attacks or behaving as birds? (what about non bird flying types?) and that "posts where the focus is on a flying type pokemon" was vandalism?

"Focusing on" should mean more than just "this is the only pokemon in the image" imo. The specific trait of them being Flying type should be emphasized. This is the kind of thing you would be adding to the pool (it's already in it, but shouldn't be) when it's a more appropriate addition to the Fire type pool (also already in that one, and does actually fit there). In fact, there are at least three pages of images of Charizard alone with this exact problem.

Dual type Pokemon should also get extra scrutiny for these pools. Emolga and Vivillon shouldn't be included just because they're also Flying type, when they're more recognizable as Electric and Bug type, respectively.

I've always interpreted these pools as having focus on multiple, various Pokemon of a specific type. To the point where there's a defined Type that is immediately obvious (for anyone posting/seeing) from the presence of multiple Pokemon of that type

post #7180631 for example I put in the Ghost pool because there's a bunch of Ghost Pokemon in a scenario. like the post is clearly made for the Ghost pool. but then someone (who also seems to have the same interpretation of these pools as you, and imo bloats them way too much) adds this to the Fire Pool too just because Ceruledge is also part fire type. which doesn't make any sense to me.

post #7364735 and post #7348969 are also good examples for the Water type Pool, but I disagree with post #7159335. That post is about Chewtle, it's not about the Water type as the former two are clearly about.

I think the descriptions should be updated since people keep misusing them. By "their lives" I take it to mean pokemon actually living and existing in a real enviroment post #3575666 or post #694262 would be good flying type ones. A random pidgey in a white void shouldn't be included.

blindVigil said:

"Focusing on" should mean more than just "this is the only pokemon in the image" imo. The specific trait of them being Flying type should be emphasized. This is the kind of thing you would be adding to the pool (it's already in it, but shouldn't be) when it's a more appropriate addition to the Fire type pool (also already in that one, and does actually fit there). In fact, there are at least three pages of images of Charizard alone with this exact problem.

I don't know about "only one" since you can have multiple pokemon of the same type interacting in an image post #6463779 post #1721454 but yes I think that the elemental power should be emphasized as should as above real pictures of them in environments and game locations.

zetsubousensei said:

I don't know about "only one" since you can have multiple pokemon of the same type interacting in an image post #6463779 post #1721454 but yes I think that the elemental power should be emphasized as should as above real pictures of them in environments and game locations.

I'm not sure which of us is misunderstanding something here, but I meant "this Pokémon is the only Pokémon in the image, and it's a Flying type" shouldn't automatically qualify it for the Flying type pool. Which is what this BUR aims to do.

I think multiple Pokémon of the same type being present definitely qualifies, as does emphasis on type specific abilities.

blindVigil said:

I'm not sure which of us is misunderstanding something here, but I meant "this Pokémon is the only Pokémon in the image, and it's a Flying type" shouldn't automatically qualify it for the Flying type pool. Which is what this BUR aims to do.

I think multiple Pokémon of the same type being present definitely qualifies, as does emphasis on type specific abilities.

I'm the one misunderstanding you, glad we agee and sorry for the confusion. Ideally interactions between the same types should be the priority in fact.

Everyone there was a discussion on the discord about rewording the description of the type pools. Obst and I liked the following but what do you all think?

from:

Posts focusing on Flying Pokémon - their variety, their powers, their evolutions, their lives, etc.

to:

Posts where the (blank) type is the theme, such as multiple (blank) pokemon together where the type is what ties them together. For solo pictures the post must focus on the type in some way, such as using a (blank) type attack.

The bulk update request #24631 (forum #274072) has been rejected by @War6t2.

seems good to me

Way clearer! 1+ to changing pools to it.

Okay seems we reached a consensus here. @Obst and I weren't sure what to do with evolutionary lines. Of course they should only be there if all of them have the afformentioned type (eg, no charmanders in flying) but do they have rules similar to solo pokemon?

This also leaves the question of how exactly one expresses the flying type? As things like fire or electricity are much more obvious. Does there need to be a focus on bird like behavior or flying? Do you guys think this would fit in the flying pool post #4718377? Personally I do. This might be a problem for grass as well, as is a grass pokemon outside surrounded by plants just being outside or is it showing a grass type theme? Water types are easier to equate to a type theme when they are shown in bodies of water. Dragons might be a bit tricky but fairies could rely on the overly cutey magical aesthetic.

but do they have rules similar to solo pokemon?

imo solo Pokemon, solo focus Pokemon, "solo" Evolutionary line and "solo focus" Evolutionary line should all function similarly for these pools yeah. as long as the type can be argued to be clearly expressed

Do you guys think this would fit in the flying pool post #4718377? Personally I do.

imo yeah, though I personally wouldn't count it for the Dragon pool. in general I think there are bound to be some disagreements from some people on what counts as expressing a Type. for Dragon types, where the vast majority of Pokemon aren't even traditional dragons to begin with (except Dragonite and Charizard and maybe a few others), I think behaviours and aesthetics are harder to define and thus most posts in that pool should probably be just focusing on a group of Dragon mons

Done. This took way longer than I thought.

We need a line about how multiple pokemon of the same species doesn't count but I couldn't fit it in a way I liked and also got lazy. Maybe something like "solo (or multiple of the same single species" but I'm not sure if species would confuse some people or "multiple of the same pokemon" would make people think of cloning or multiple views. I'm just thinking in terms of "what could possibly be misunderstood about this". Also perhaps changing "multiple (blank) pokemon together" to "multiple (blank) type pokemon together" to not confuse with verbs (flying, fighting) or material.

I won't be at home for the next few days and don't know how much "downtime" I will be spending online instead of what I'm doing so I humbly request someone else adds one of these changes if people agree on them.

In the meantime here are some more examples of single species or evolutionary lines to see if people agree with me?:

post #1336890: Expresses fairy, forest and "mystical" atmosphere, I was actually going to say expresses fairy and grass but turns out xerneas is pure fairy type..

post #690108: Expresses ground and rock

post #552789: Expresses ground

post #887976 and post #535061 both express ice despite being solo, post #826225 dosen't despite being an ice type evolutionary line because it has fuck all to do with the ice theme.

post #1481400, and post #1439620 shows fairy but post #1360315 is debatable despite all being solo sylveon.

c_spl said:

imo solo Pokemon, solo focus Pokemon, "solo" Evolutionary line and "solo focus" Evolutionary line should all function similarly for these pools yeah. as long as the type can be argued to be clearly expressed

Funny edge case about that, mega altaria isn't flying but posts where it acts as a cloud in the sky post #6292712 post #6779419 feel very flying type. I know this breaks the rule of not every pokemon in an evolutionary line (counting megas here) having the correct type but should those be included?

War6t2 said:

Funny edge case about that, mega altaria isn't flying but posts where it acts as a cloud in the sky post #6292712 post #6779419 feel very flying type. I know this breaks the rule of not every pokemon in an evolutionary line (counting megas here) having the correct type but should those be included?

If they don't actually have the correct typing then they shouldn't count. If we allowed cases like this, then any Pokémon breathing fire would count regardless of their actual typing, because it "feels" very Fire type.

blindVigil said:

If they don't actually have the correct typing then they shouldn't count. If we allowed cases like this, then any Pokémon breathing fire would count regardless of their actual typing, because it "feels" very Fire type.

The solo mega altaria was a bad example from the flying pool. I mean more so groups or solo focus posts. Such as here post #7184443 where two birds and the tiny joltik aren't flying type but the rest are.

War6t2 said:

The solo mega altaria was a bad example from the flying pool. I mean more so groups or solo focus posts. Such as here post #7184443 where two birds and the tiny joltik aren't flying type but the rest are.

I don't know why the Joltik is there, but if it's a picture of a bunch of birds, and two of them aren't Flying type, then isn't the focus on them being birds, and not on them being Flying type?

blindVigil said:

I don't know why the Joltik is there, but if it's a picture of a bunch of birds, and two of them aren't Flying type, then isn't the focus on them being birds, and not on them being Flying type?

Posts like this would better fall under species connection pokemon like piplup might be a bird, but its pure water and can't fly.

I personally also don't like that they are all in a white void instead of doing anything flying related, but I digress.

zetsubousensei said:

Posts like this would better fall under species connection pokemon like piplup might be a bird, but its pure water and can't fly.

I personally also don't like that they are all in a white void instead of doing anything flying related, but I digress.

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.