The bulk update request #6553 is active.

Reason: This has been bugging me for a while.

Currently, SatAM related images on here get mistagged due to incorrect aliases and implications. These images, for example, are unrelated to the Sonic comics and are instead based on SatAM:

post #4474864 post #4454417 post #1861093 post #4135831

Sonic SatAM is actually a cartoon with its own canon. While the Sonic Archie comics technically predate SatAM, the Archie comics plotlines were loosely based on SatAM, and Sally and friends originate from SatAM first.

Most of these characters should just imply the main series, as they are pretty much the same between SatAM and Archie beyond differences due to the canons, Antoine in SatAM has a completely different name, as does Robotnik. So Antoine D'Coolette can remain implying the Archie comics, because the Antoine in SatAM is named Antoine Depardieu.

Nicole's Lynx form is Archie exclusive, but her computer form can be seen in both, so it should inply the overall series.

Part 2:

alias satam -> sonic_the_hedgehog_(satam)
alias sonic_satam -> sonic_the_hedgehog_(satam)
implicate sally_acorn -> sonic_the_hedgehog_(series)
implicate bunnie_rabbot -> sonic_the_hedgehog_(series)
implicate rotor_the_walrus -> sonic_the_hedgehog_(series)
implicate lupe_the_wolf -> sonic_the_hedgehog_(series)

EDIT: The bulk update request #6553 (forum #390784) has been approved by @spe.

There was actually another Sonic cartoon with different characters. "sonic_the_hedgehog_(cartoon)" may be too ambiguous as referring to the Adventures version or SatAM version.

watsit said:
There was actually another Sonic cartoon with different characters. "sonic_the_hedgehog_(cartoon)" may be too ambiguous as referring to the Adventures version or SatAM version.

Yeah, I was worried about that. I thought it might be fine since there isn't another cartoon just named "Sonic the Hedgehog", but I suppose being clearer wouldn't hurt.

Would sonic_the_hedgehog_(satam) be better?

the SatAM chatacters at this point are much more associated with the Archie comics at this point than they are with SatAM; in most peoples' minds SatAM and Archie are essentially synonymous and since the characters all lived under the Archie roof for far longer than they did the SatAM roof. despite _technically_ being wrong in spirit and function I think these implications are better.

I'm pretty sure that the only reasons these tags exist is because Sonic fans all hate at least one facet of the the franchise with a burning passion, so I'd be very wary of changing these implications.

sipothac said:
the SatAM chatacters at this point are much more associated with the Archie comics at this point than they are with SatAM; in most peoples' minds SatAM and Archie are essentially synonymous and since the characters all lived under the Archie roof for far longer than they did the SatAM roof. despite _technically_ being wrong in spirit and function I think these implications are better.

I'm pretty sure that the only reasons these tags exist is because Sonic fans all hate at least one facet of the the franchise with a burning passion, so I'd be very wary of changing these implications.

I don't think "Sonic fans will be mad" is a good reason to leave blatantly incorrect implications that make searching worse. Sonic fans are always mad. If they don't want to see Sally, they can blacklist Sally.

(This BUR also wouldn't make Sally and co. imply SatAM, just Sonic series, because they're in multiple iterations of the franchise. Sally was also in the Fleetway comics as well, even. This also isn't going to mass remove Archie from all the Sally pictures from Archie, it just means we can correct the tags on pictures of her in SatAM or Fleetway. I wouldn't be bothered by the implications if we could remove implicated tags on exception images.)

Anyways, I changed the BUR to use sonic_the_hedgehog_(satam) based on Watsit's reply.

dsco said:
Would sonic_the_hedgehog_(satam) be better?

I would say so, yes.

Bumping again

I think it's silly to move implications away from what is most associated with the characters.

dba_afish said:
I think it's silly to move implications away from what is most associated with the characters.

Because it leads to incorrect tags that cannot be removed. People can still add the tags, we're not removing the Archie tag from Archie posts. It's just that there's a good handful of posts with incorrect tags that cannot be removed currently.

Implications aren't supposed to have exceptions.

nimphia said:
Because it leads to incorrect tags that cannot be removed. People can still add the tags, we're not removing the Archie tag from Archie posts. It's just that there's a good handful of posts with incorrect tags that cannot be removed currently.

Implications aren't supposed to have exceptions.

the difference between SatAM and Archie are more or less the difference between like Puyo Puyo and Madou Monogatari, there more or less just different eras of the same thing. I don't really see a problem with having them aliased together

dba_afish said:
the difference between SatAM and Archie are more or less the difference between like Puyo Puyo and Madou Monogatari, there more or less just different eras of the same thing. I don't really see a problem with aliasing them together

They're different canons. Archie is just inspired by SatAM, they're not the same thing. They have very different characterization and plot points because Archie just took the early show bible and created its own thing from it. The characters, including Sally, also appear in the Fleetway comics which are wildly different from both Archie AND SatAM.

also Archie debuted first.

dba_afish said:
also Archie debuted first.

I said that in the original post. Archie was based on the early show bible for SatAM. The characters debuted in SatAM first and were created by DiC. But it doesn't matter because I'm only changing the implications to the overall series tag, not to SatAM.

nimphia said:
I said that in the original post. Archie was based on the early show bible for SatAM. The characters debuted in SatAM first and were created by DiC. But it doesn't matter because I'm only changing the implications to the overall series tag, not to SatAM.

what's the point of a copyright tag if nothing is implied to it?

dba_afish said:
what's the point of a series tag if nothing is implied to it?

Have you read the actual post you're replying to? There are characters implied to SatAM, characters that are distinctly named in SatAM compared to their Archie counterparts. Copyrights can be manually tagged, too, it's not like you have to add them via implication...

nimphia said:
Have you read the actual post you're replying to? There are characters implied to SatAM, characters that are distinctly named in SatAM compared to their Archie counterparts. Copyrights can be manually tagged, too, it's not like you have to add them via implication...

I just think that it's stupid to have a tag that has 2 things implicated to it. this'd be like having a separate legend_of_spyro tag and only having cynder implied to it.

when people are looking for the Archie Sonic characters they're going to be looking for the Archie Sonic characters.

dba_afish said:
I just think that it's stupid to have a tag that has 2 things implicated to it. this'd be like having a separate legend_of_spyro tag and only having cynder implied to it.

when people are looking for the Archie Sonic characters they're going to be looking for the Archie Sonic characters.

I feel like I'm running in circles here. This is so we can actually tag the exceptions that aren't Archie. Both SatAM and Fleetway. Because it's stupid to have Archie attached to posts that aren't related to Archie.

nimphia said:
I feel like I'm running in circles here. This is so we can actually tag the exceptions that aren't Archie. Both SatAM and Fleetway. Because it's stupid to have Archie attached to posts that aren't related to Archie.

but why, though? why would it make sense to remove the implication from the bulk of the Archie cast from the Archie Sonic tag?

tags are primarily meant to be useful removing almost all of the notable cast members from the Archie Sonic tag would make it less useful for almost no reason, the like, handful of actually SatAM-related content on the site.

dba_afish said:
but why, though? why would it make sense to remove the implication from the bulk of the Archie cast from the Archie Sonic tag?

tags are primarily meant to be useful removing almost all of the notable cast members from the Archie Sonic tag would make it less useful for almost no reason, the like, handful of actually SatAM-related content on the site.

Because there's no way to remove implied tags from posts. Unless you want to make a feature request to change that, this is the only way to keep these posts from having unrelated tags forcibly added.

Once again, some of these characters also appear in Fleetway... It's not just a SatAM issue.

I'd love to hear other people's thoughts on this though rather than turning this thread into a back and forth repeating argument.

don't know, what if we did this with mario?

like, oh, well, technically he appeared in two donkey_kong_(series) games before he made an appearance in the mario_bros. series, so he should imply that, actually.

Sally and most of the rest of the SatAM cast are Archie characters primarily, I don't think it makes sense to split hairs on this.

dba_afish said:
don't know, what if we did this with mario?

like, oh, well, technically he appeared in two donkey_kong_(series) games before he made an appearance in the mario_bros. series, so he should imply that, actually.

Sally and most of the rest of the SatAM cast are Archie characters primarily, I don't think it makes sense to split hairs on this.

Okay, come on. There's a big difference between "the main character of a massive multimedia franchise appeared in two games of another franchise first" and "is a major character in multiple canons of the same franchise". This is just silly.

It's all Sonic at the end of the day and these characters will still imply Sonic. The characters actually made for Archie will still imply Archie. Comparing this to removing the Mario implication is ridiculous.

It doesn't help that there was a massive retcon tossed into the mix, as well.

dba_afish said:
what's the point of a copyright tag if nothing is implied to it?

What's the point of a copyright tag that has the wrong copyright? Those characters are owned by SEGA, not Archie.

dba_afish said:
also Archie debuted first.

The reason these characters technically appear in the comics first is because it naturally takes longer for animation to be made than a cartoon. Regardless, SEGA owns their copyright, not Archie, and not DIC.

temp7 said:
Those characters are owned by SEGA, not Archie.
[...]
Regardless, SEGA owns their copyright, not Archie, and not DIC.

okay?

all that would mean is that they shouldn't imply archie_comics or dic (maybe). the tags themselves are still as valid as any of the single video game title tags that we've got or anything like that. almost all of the comics, animation, and other expanded media content takes place in distinct universes from the canon game titles, and even if they weren't they're seperate enough to warrant their own tags, Sonic isn't unique with this.

dba_afish said:
okay?

all that would mean is that they shouldn't imply archie_comics or dic (maybe). the tags themselves are still as valid as any of the single video game title tags that we've got or anything like that. almost all of the comics, animation, and other expanded media content takes place in distinct universes from the canon game titles, and even if they weren't they're seperate enough to warrant their own tags, Sonic isn't unique with this.

I didn't suggest deleting the copyright tags, but rather, removing the Archie tag implications from these character tags. Thats what the OP is about, too.

temp7 said:
I didn't suggest deleting the copyright tags, but rather, removing the Archie tag implications from these character tags. Thats what the OP is about, too.

yeah, and your reasons for doing such is just that neither Archie nor DiC own the characters, which is not a good reason to essentially entirely hamstring the functions of a tag. a copyright tag which lacks character implications is functionally useless.

if we're to do this we might as well remove the character implications from sonic_boom and adventures_of_sonic_the_hedgehog and sonic_prime and sonic_the_hedgehog_(idw) and everything else, because... ???.

a copyright tag category, despite its name, is not just for "who owns the copyright to <thing>" tags it's also for stuff like series/title of origin.

dba_afish said:
yeah, and your reasons for doing such is just that neither Archie nor DiC own the characters, which is not a good reason to essentially entirely hamstring the functions of a tag. a copyright tag which lacks character implications is functionally useless.

if we're to do this we might as well remove the character implications from sonic_boom and adventures_of_sonic_the_hedgehog and sonic_prime and sonic_the_hedgehog_(idw) and everything else, because... ???.

a copyright tag category, despite its name, is not just for "who owns the copyright to <thing>" tags it's also for stuff like series/title of origin.

And guess what? The characters addressed here don't originate with Archie. There are characters that DID originate with Archie: they can keep the tag.

temp7 said:
And guess what? The characters addressed here don't originate with Archie. There are characters that DID originate with Archie: they can keep the tag.

should mario imply donkey_kong_(series) instead of mario_bros, then? or maybe he should just imply nintendo directly, prolly do the same with donkey_kong_(character) and mayor_pauline, too.

the SatAM cast featured more prominently in the Archie run than literally anywhere else, to the point that SatAM and Archie are effectively synonymous.

dba_afish said:
should mario imply donkey_kong_(series) instead of mario_bros, then? or maybe he should just imply nintendo directly, prolly do the same with donkey_kong_(character) and mayor_pauline, too.

the SatAM cast featured more prominently in the Archie run than literally anywhere else, to the point that SatAM and Archie are effectively synonymous.

They are dramatically different continuities, with different characterizations and narrative outcomes.

temp7 said:
They are dramatically different continuities, with different characterizations and narrative outcomes.

yeah, but the casts are identical, only with Archie having more characters because it ran for like two dozen years rather than SatAM's one season, as far as I'm aware there's no part of SatAM that wasn't eventually absorbed into the Archie run. these two are inextricably linked, but Archie supercedes SatAM because, y'know, it ran roughly 24 times longer.

dba_afish said:
yeah, but the casts are identical, only with Archie having more characters because it ran for like two dozen years rather than SatAM's one season, as far as I'm aware there's no part of SatAM that wasn't eventually absorbed into the Archie run. these two are inextricably linked, but Archie supercedes SatAM because, y'know, it ran roughly 24 times longer.

That's called ignorance. SatAM has unique characters, as does Archie, and no, SatAM was not 'absorbed' into Archie. There's exactly one episode of SatAM that's represented in the Archie comic series. One. And it has a different ending.

For example, the mutated Subterranean King never appears in Archie. Nor does Project Doomsday. The stories are utterly divergent.

The bulk update request #6553 (forum #390784) has been approved by @spe.

I know basically nothing about Sonic, but I consulted a Sonic fan who said that this is basically correct.

Unfortunately, an implication is invalid if there are cases where it definitely does not apply, even if those cases are in the minority. I was sort of annoyed that the dialogue implication had to be removed from talking to viewer because there were like 3 whole posts that did not include dialogue, but that's just how it be.

spe said:
I know basically nothing about Sonic, but I consulted a Sonic fan who said that this is basically correct.

Unfortunately, an implication is invalid if there are cases where it definitely does not apply, even if those cases are in the minority. I was sort of annoyed that the dialogue implication had to be removed from talking to viewer because there were like 3 whole posts that did not include dialogue, but that's just how it be.

for tagging purposes I don't think it makes sense to have these two things separate. when anyone talks about the Archie cast they're almost certainly including the SatAM cast in there.

as I said earlier, having the SatAM cast imply a SatAM tag and not the Archie tag is akin to mario implying donkey_kong_(series) and not mario_bros.

spe said:
Unfortunately, an implication is invalid if there are cases where it definitely does not apply, even if those cases are in the minority. I was sort of annoyed that the dialogue implication had to be removed from talking to viewer because there were like 3 whole posts that did not include dialogue, but that's just how it be.

also, what?

any time a character is talking it's dialogue that's what the tag is for, a character in a scene is communicating (or trying to) with another character in a scene or to the viewer. if the speech is inaudible or something you'd tag that edge case with a tag for that case, like inaudible_dialogue, you wouldn't remove the dialogue tag.

dba_afish said:
for tagging purposes I don't think it makes sense to have these two things separate. when anyone talks about the Archie cast they're almost certainly including the SatAM cast in there.

as I said earlier, having the SatAM cast imply a SatAM tag and not the Archie tag is akin to mario implying donkey_kong_(series) and not mario_bros.

Every example in the OP is an example of art referencing SatAM and not Archie. As well as this, this, and this. And then the fact the OP was made in the first place.

Denying this fact is exactly that: denial. There's a difference between SatAM and Archie in characterization, lore, and even style. Whether or not you personally choose to accept that difference is effectively immaterial: the difference exists.

temp7 said:
Every example in the OP is an example of art referencing SatAM and not Archie. As well as this, this, and this. And then the fact the OP was made in the first place.

Denying this fact is exactly that: denial. There's a difference between SatAM and Archie in characterization, lore, and even style. Whether or not you personally choose to accept that difference is effectively immaterial: the difference exists.

whatever.

I'm not going to change my mind that characters who feature entirely in spin-off material being implied directly to the main series tag and not to a tag for a spin-off they're in is just bad. it makes all of the related tags worse.

just unaliasing sonic_satam and leaving all the existing implications would've worked perfectly fine. just add the tag to SatAM-related situations along side the tag that the characters imply. the same way we can add donkey_kong_(1981) on a picture like post #3994465 along side the mario_bros tag that gets implied and it still works to find the exact kinda image I was looking for all without making the mario_bros tag worse by unimplying the character from the thing that they're primarily associated with.

dba_afish said:
whatever.

I'm not going to change my mind that characters who feature entirely in spin-off material being implied directly to the main series tag and not to a tag for a spin-off they're in is just bad. it makes all of the related tags worse.

just unaliasing sonic_satam and leaving all the existing implications would've worked perfectly fine. just add the tag to SatAM-related situations along side the tag that the characters imply. the same way we can add donkey_kong_(1981) on a picture like post #3994465 along side the mario_bros tag that gets implied and it still works to find the exact kinda image I was looking for all without making the mario_bros tag worse by unimplying the character from the thing that they're primarily associated with.

The difference being that Donkey Kong is a part of Mario Bros. SatAM is not a part of Archie.

dba_afish said:
also, what?

any time a character is talking it's dialogue that's what the tag is for, a character in a scene is communicating (or trying to) with another character in a scene or to the viewer. if the speech is inaudible or something you'd tag that edge case with a tag for that case, like inaudible_dialogue, you wouldn't remove the dialogue tag.

https://e621.net/forum_topics/33133 🤷‍♂️
If you want to propose a tag like inaudible_dialogue to cover cases like that and restore this implication, you could make a request and see what others think. I’m not opposed, though the current definition of dialogue would probably have to be altered to accommodate that.

dba_afish said:
for tagging purposes I don't think it makes sense to have these two things separate. when anyone talks about the Archie cast they're almost certainly including the SatAM cast in there.

as I said earlier, having the SatAM cast imply a SatAM tag and not the Archie tag is akin to mario implying donkey_kong_(series) and not mario_bros.

I’m not really sure that’s equivalent since Donkey Kong really is just part of the overarching Mario Bros. universe. Like, not necessarily every Donkey Kong game features Mario characters, but it’s pretty well established that they both inhabit a shared universe. Very many Mario games feature Donkey and sometimes other Kong characters, like Mario Kart and Mario Party and so on - the Donkey Kong series itself is more or less just a branch or spinoff of the main Mario franchise rather than a separate, isolated universe with shared characters, regardless of which one technically came first. I don’t even think it would be wrong for donkey_kong_(series) to imply mario_bros because they are actually so entwined.

spe said:
I’m not really sure that’s equivalent since Donkey Kong really is just part of the overarching Mario Bros. universe. Like, not necessarily every Donkey Kong game features Mario characters, but it’s pretty well established that they both inhabit a shared universe. Very many Mario games feature Donkey and sometimes other Kong characters, like Mario Kart and Mario Party and so on - the Donkey Kong series itself is more or less just a branch or spinoff of the main Mario franchise rather than a separate, isolated universe with shared characters, regardless of which one technically came first. I don’t even think it would be wrong for donkey_kong_(series) to imply mario_bros because they are actually so entwined.

it's not 1-to-1 but I think it's analogous enough to be relevant and point to the fact that we do make exceptions like this as to what copytag inherits what characters. it's also relevant since the Mario Bros. series was initially a spin-off of Donkey Kong before eventually usurping that title and becoming the parents series, people now treating Donkey Kong as a spin-off series. the order of operations for SatAM and Archie is very similar, with the former becoming significantly less relevant over time compared to the series that borrowed its cast. the main diffrence I see here is that, unlike SatAm, Donkey Kong never stopped existing.

another example of a similar situation is toon link implying wind_waker when "Toon Link" can refer to a handful of characters from 5 other games in addition to Winds himself (Minish, Tracks, both sets of The Four who Were One, and each of The Tri-Force Heroes) all diffrent characters from entirely different eras and/or entirely diffrent timelines.

there's the puyo_puyo and madou_monogatari case, a puzzle game spin-off of an RPG series absorbing its parent series (longer explanation here. and while this isn't an example of existing implications, individual users have already tagged all of the Madou characters with puyo_puyo, in addition to Madou characters having the *_(puyo_puyo) suffix when necessary (Japanese sites do this too, notably, Pixiv, uses #*(ぷよぷよ) for several Madou characters).

dba_afish said:
it's not 1-to-1 but I think it's analogous enough to be relevant and point to the fact that we do make exceptions like this as to what copytag inherits what characters. it's also relevant since the Mario Bros. series was initially a spin-off of Donkey Kong before eventually usurping that title and becoming the parents series, people now treating Donkey Kong as a spin-off series. the order of operations for SatAM and Archie is very similar, with the former becoming significantly less relevant over time compared to the series that borrowed its cast. the main diffrence I see here is that, unlike SatAm, Donkey Kong never stopped existing.

another example of a similar situation is toon link implying wind_waker when "Toon Link" can refer to a handful of characters from 5 other games in addition to Winds himself (Minish, Tracks, both sets of The Four who Were One, and each of The Tri-Force Heroes) all diffrent characters from entirely different eras and/or entirely diffrent timelines.

there's the puyo_puyo and madou_monogatari case, a puzzle game spin-off of an RPG series absorbing its parent series (longer explanation here. and while this isn't an example of existing implications, individual users have already tagged all of the Madou characters with puyo_puyo, in addition to Madou characters having the *_(puyo_puyo) suffix when necessary (Japanese sites do this too, notably, Pixiv, uses #*(ぷよぷよ) for several Madou characters).

None of these are a similar situation.

Sonic SatAM is a specific and unique cartoon series with a specific and unique continuity of events: events that simply do not occur in Archie.

Archie has entire situations that have absolutely nothing to do with SatAM in any regard. Vice versa, SatAM involves events and scenarios integral to it's own narrative that don't have anything to do with Archie. Basic characterization differs, too: same names, vastly different personalities.

Beyond that, Sega created and owns these characters: Archie no longer has the right to use them.

Labelling SatAM and Archie under one tag is effectively disingenuous.

EDIT: even the TVTropes page says, "(The Archie Comics series) was licensed as a spin-off of this show, though the comic book got to the consumers first. Despite being officially licensed as a spinoff and using many of the same characters, the comic bears little similarity to the shows' overall plot."

The bulk update request #11206 is active.

create alias satam (0) -> sonic_the_hedgehog_(satam) (324)
create alias sonic_satam (0) -> sonic_the_hedgehog_(satam) (324)
create implication sally_acorn (6330) -> sonic_the_hedgehog_(series) (129096)
create implication bunnie_rabbot (1808) -> sonic_the_hedgehog_(series) (129096)
create implication rotor_the_walrus (204) -> sonic_the_hedgehog_(series) (129096)
create implication lupe_the_wolf (403) -> sonic_the_hedgehog_(series) (129096)

Reason: Part 2 of this thread's BUR

EDIT: The bulk update request #11206 (forum #450449) has been approved by @spe.

The bulk update request #11206 (forum #450449) has been approved by @spe.