Topic: Form transformation tag implication Bur

The bulk update request #4061 is pending approval.

Reason: Implies all form to form transformation tags to the transformation tag for their ending form. Then implies those form transformation tags to their form tag. Inanimate_transformation is left out because it is used for both transformation into inanimate_objects and transformation into animate_inanimate.

https://e621.net/forum_topics/24050 should be accepted to match these changes
implicate anthro_to_inanimate -> inanimate_transformation # duplicate of implication #24568

Part 2:
implicate feral_to_taur -> taur_transformation
implicate anthro_to_taur -> taur_transformation
implicate humanoid_to_taur -> taur_transformation
implicate human_to_taur -> taur_transformation
implicate inanimate_to_taur -> taur_transformation

implicate feral_transformation -> feral
implicate anthro_transformation -> anthro
implicate humanoid_transformation -> humanoid
implicate human_transformation -> human
implicate taur_transformation -> taur

The bulk update request #4062 is pending approval.

create implication feral_to_taur (4) -> taur_transformation (161)
create implication anthro_to_taur (87) -> taur_transformation (161)
create implication humanoid_to_taur (22) -> taur_transformation (161)
create implication human_to_taur (236) -> taur_transformation (161)
create implication inanimate_to_taur (0) -> taur_transformation (161)
create implication feral_transformation (643) -> feral (705717)
create implication anthro_transformation (191) -> anthro (3975435)
create implication humanoid_transformation (8) -> humanoid (523085)
create implication human_transformation (8) -> human (436747)
create implication taur_transformation (161) -> taur (22025)

Reason: Second part of the above BUR.

I dunno, those x_transformation tags read too ambiguous to me, about whether it's transformation to or from the given form (like how x_domination is ambiguous about whether x is dominating or dominated). And no doubt what a character is transformation from can be just as relevant as what they're transforming to.

watsit said:
I dunno, those x_transformation tags read too ambiguous to me, about whether it's transformation to or from the given form (like how x_domination is ambiguous about whether x is dominating or dominated).

That's something I'm not happy about either. There are very few transformation tags that don't run into some kind of ambiguity. I've tried bouncing ideas for how to fix it in https://e621.net/forum_topics/37070, but I don't think there's a solution coming anytime soon. For the current moment, x_transformation is how most transformation tags are done, and these implications should help those tags.

watsit said:
And no doubt what a character is transformation from can be just as relevant as what they're transforming to.

I thought so too, but surprisingly I've only found one tag that only describes what a character is transforming from, that being reverse_robotization. I really thought there would be more.

oozeenthusiast said:
I thought so too, but surprisingly I've only found one tag that only describes what a character is transforming from, that being reverse_robotization. I really thought there would be more.

Just because there aren't tags doesn't mean they wouldn't be good to tag. As it is, inanimate_transformation is the only one to have a decent number of uses, the others are all under 320 each. It could be they had the same problem, coming up with an unambiguous tag name for it (even reverse_robotization doesn't sound right, since it implies a character was first robotisized, and that process is being reversed; and it seems 3 of its 4 uses aren't for transformation, but for a robotic character drawn non-robotic, more akin to crossgender or alternate_form). It could also be there are some hiding in the existing tags (for non-sequences, it can be difficult sometimes to objectively tell which way the transformation is going).