Topic: Chip n Dale Resue Rangers Series Tag Character Implications

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

gridanon

Member

The bulk update request #679 is pending approval.

create implication gadget_hackwrench (93) -> chip_n_dale_rescue_rangers (64)
create implication foxglove_(cdrr) (2) -> chip_n_dale_rescue_rangers (64)

Reason: Gadget Hackwrench and Foxglove are both from Chip N' Dale: Rescue Rangers, so their character tags should imply the series tags. Foxglove's character tag even already includes the series abbreviation.

However, should Chip and Dale also imply this series? They're the starring characters, but they aren't originally from the series. Their most iconic look with Chip wearing the hat and Dale wearing the Hawaiian Shirt is from the series though. It looks like every image currently with the "chip_(disney)" and "dale_(disney)" tags has had the chip_n_dale_rescue_rangers series tag manually added, so maybe adding the implication for those makes sense too?

dfY6C

Privileged

gridanon said:
However, should Chip and Dale also imply this series? They're the starring characters, but they aren't originally from the series. Their most iconic look with Chip wearing the hat and Dale wearing the Hawaiian Shirt is from the series though. It looks like every image currently with the "chip_(disney)" and "dale_(disney)" tags has had the chip_n_dale_rescue_rangers series tag manually added, so maybe adding the implication for those makes sense too?

A tricky situation that I'm not entirely sure what to do about (I'm kinda on two sides of it), but I want to provide some context and observations I've noticed with this so far.

First, it's worth knowing that the chip_(disney) and dale_(disney) aliases/implications on e621 were set by the user ImpidiDinkaDoo who gathered a reputation for setting aliases/implications without any forum discussion or votes at all, resulting in a lot of flawed systemic tag changes across much of the site. If you go on the links and press "Show" on those lines, you'll see on those respective pages that there is no "reference" line on any of those, unlike something like alias #60678 which does have a reference line with a forum topic linked to it. If you press any of the excerpts from this forum search with their name, you'll see comments from users pretty much exactly criticizing or throwing shade to what Imipidi did to some tags. I mention all this because it technically opens the door to "correcting" tags that they touched, which I even had to do with my Monster Hunter and Mario BUR here since a decent amount of Impidi's tagwork came through in the e6ai migration when the site first started. I do agree with keeping chip and dale with (disney) at the end, but I don't know yet whether to imply their series. Although, this leads into my next thought...

Second, I ran into a similar issue with the Godzilla BUR because Rodan and Mothra don't imply the Godzilla series tag because they technically started as their own separate thing, but basically everyone who knows these characters know them as "Godzilla" characters so it almost seems like it should imply that anyway (I still haven't handled these characters yet). And you'd probably think "if there's an edge case for it, then let it be that way" but I also have a counter-example for that, too. The Rareware character Conker implicates conker's_bad_fur_day on e621 but he actually didn't debut in that game, he showed up in 2 other games before that, with his actual debut being in Diddy Kong Racing and his first leading role was in Conker's Pocket Tales two years before Bad Fur Day. He's obviously much more known for Bad Fur Day since that's his big signature game but it's technically not accurate if we went by the same logic that the Mothra and Rodan implications on e621 went by, so this raises the question if we should imply Chip and Dale to their series instead since those are what they are most known for.

I'm also curious what others think about this.

Kaleth

Janitor

I think I'm the one using the disambiguated tag for Chip and Dale; For Chip: chips can be food too, and for Dale: tag symmetry/consistency.

My personal feeling is that, seldomly, we try to use alias/imply tags for tag completeness. Basically, using those features to counter lazy taggers. In those cases, aliases and implications should not be made imho. If you tag a post and a franchise is applicable, then apply the tag.

There's 2 problems with it:

First and foremost, it's too rigid: what happens if the franchise tag don't apply? Users can't bypass implications and that means they are either forced to misstag the post, or forced to remove a tag that should be there.

Second, You can't counter lazy taggers with "simple" solutions like alias and implications.

To me, aliases should only be use on concepts that are synonymous, and implications should be made on concepts that can't exist without the implied tag: it should "always be true"