The bulk update request #4787 is pending approval.

Reason: MOVED posts:
latex: topic #32232
willing: topic #35549, topic #37517 DISCUSS PLEASE
others From WIKI

- is growth always transformation "growing new body parts or muscles"

The bulk update request #4789 is pending approval.

Reason: repost with forum topic:
- should pussy_transformation imply transformation directly (if not, unalias CTF)
transformation into body parts is transformation
genitals are body parts
transforming into inanimate objects -> inanimate_transformation

The bulk update request #4790 is pending approval.

Reason:
- should transformative -> transformation really be included?

feral_transformation, taur_transformation, human_transformation, humanoid_transformation, anthro_transformation, and egg_transformation sound ambiguous; it can be interpreted as a feral, taur, egg, etc, transforming, or someone transformation into a feral, taur, egg, etc.

I don't think I would count merging, mitosis, or twinning as transformation. I'd consider merging to be a type of absorption, and mitosis and twinning are a character splitting into two, but not themselves necessarily changing.

robotization may need a different name. At first I thought it meant a non-robot character depicted as a robot, ala feralization or humanization, rather than a character transforming into a robot. It seems others have the same confusion, since there's a number of posts tagged with it that don't feature transformation or imply one (e.g. post #4053740 and post #4018106, along with many others). Perhaps robotification to fit the other transformation-related tags?

permanent_transformation sounds a bit too tag-what-you-know to me. I don't think there's any way to tell whether a transformation is permanent from what you see in an image or sequence. Perhaps some writing or dialog can state it, but that's considered external information. That's probably better aliased, IMO.

The transformation_by_ tags also seem a bit sketchy to me. They seem like they straddle the line for what-you-see vs what-you-know/assume. There would need to be some indication the thing is the cause, rather than something they happen to be doing when they transform. E.g. someone smoking as they transform would be tagged transformation_through_smoking, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're being transformed by the smoking/substance.

I think consensual_transformation should be aliased to transformation. We generally tag when something isn't consensual (forced, questionable_consent), and not when it is consensual (consensual_sex is aliased to sex). We already have forced_transformation and questionable_consent, so I don't think consensual_transformation is needed.

watsit said:
feral_transformation, taur_transformation, human_transformation, humanoid_transformation, anthro_transformation, and egg_transformation sound ambiguous; it can be interpreted as a feral, taur, egg, etc, transforming, or someone transformation into a feral, taur, egg, etc.

I don't think I would count merging, mitosis, or twinning as transformation. I'd consider merging to be a type of absorption, and mitosis and twinning are a character splitting into two, but not themselves necessarily changing.

robotization may need a different name. At first I thought it meant a non-robot character depicted as a robot, ala feralization or humanization, rather than a character transforming into a robot. It seems others have the same confusion, since there's a number of posts tagged with it that don't feature transformation or imply one (e.g. post #4053740 and post #4018106, along with many others). Perhaps robotification to fit the other transformation-related tags?

permanent_transformation sounds a bit too tag-what-you-know to me. I don't think there's any way to tell whether a transformation is permanent from what you see in an image or sequence. Perhaps some writing or dialog can state it, but that's considered external information. That's probably better aliased, IMO.

The transformation_by_ tags also seem a bit sketchy to me. They seem like they straddle the line for what-you-see vs what-you-know/assume. There would need to be some indication the thing is the cause, rather than something they happen to be doing when they transform. E.g. someone smoking as they transform would be tagged transformation_through_smoking, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're being transformed by the smoking/substance.

I think consensual_transformation should be aliased to transformation. We generally tag when something isn't consensual (forced, questionable_consent), and not when it is consensual (consensual_sex is aliased to sex). We already have forced_transformation and questionable_consent, so I don't think consensual_transformation is needed.

I agree for both roboticization and permanent_transformation. The latter should be invalid, whereas roboticization would be better off a robot_transformation, the only problem with that one is that roboticization is in of itself a fetish, so while it is close to transformation, it may be worth looking into this better before changing the tag. Kind of like flush_vore isn't actually vore, it is suffixed with vore because it is a fetish that's from Eka's Portal, it is probably a headache to everybody these types of tags. And roboticization is just another one of those tafs.

Again, I also want to get opinions on:
- should pussy_transformation imply transformation directly
-- (if not, unalias CTF from transformation and alias it to genital_transformation)
-- (if so, pussy_transformation should too)
- is transformative too ambiguous?
- is growth always transformation "growing new body parts or muscles"

The bulk update request #4798 is pending approval.

Reason: eg: human_to_anthro is a specificity of anthro_transformation

The bulk update request #4799 is pending approval.

create implication feral_to_human (52) -> human_transformation (1)
create implication humanoid_to_human (8) -> human_transformation (1)
create implication anthro_to_human (115) -> human_transformation (1)
create implication inanimate_to_human (1) -> human_transformation (1)
create implication taur_to_human (0) -> human_transformation (1)
create implication human_to_taur (188) -> taur_transformation (102)
create implication human_to_inanimate (293) -> inanimate_transformation (3007)
create implication human_to_feral (3300) -> feral_transformation (532)
create implication human_to_humanoid (1069) -> humanoid_transformation (3)

Reason: continuation of (BUR:4798) ....

Discussion: Should *form_transformation be UPDATED to a new, more descriptive, name?

catt0s_0fthenight said:
- is transformative too ambiguous?

I don't think so, but it also seems a bit odd of a word to use. Isn't it essentially the same as transformation_by_*?

catt0s_0fthenight said:
- is growth always transformation "growing new body parts or muscles"

Not really. There was some discussion a little bit ago about how the distinction between growth and expansion is not very clear, is often mixed up, and they may be getting merged and/or reworked. Although it may still count as transformation in either case... I'm not exactly sure where the line for transformation is when it comes to things growing or shrinking.

catt0s_0fthenight said:
I see. The wiki for twinning mentions that it is transformation. mitosis and twinning are two different things, mitosis is indeed splitting, but twinning means a character is transformed into the other character. The difference between merging and absorption_vore is that merging is 2 becoming one, whereas absorption is a superficity that includes cases such as merging.

Reading the wiki closer, yeah, twinning is probably good to imply transformation.

Merging doesn't seem to require transformation though. It could include transforming one or more of the characters into something different as they merge, but it's naming and usage seems a bit broader and can include non-transformation absorption as well, like post #3919035 and post #3001279.

catt0s_0fthenight said:
I see your point, but in the same way, what do you want? a cutaway showing lung cancer caused by smoking transforming them? be practical here, look at pool #3814.

In the case of smoking specifically, it could be depicted by the smoke being whispy, as if almost sentient, and moving in a way that appears to cause the change. Or if the change starts at the mouth and extends to the rest of the body in a manner that resembles the flow of the smoke. Something visible to indicate it's not normal smoke as they transform. In more general cases for objects, it could be a magical glow or some kind of energy. pool #3814 has both of those (a serpentine hose and nozzle that seems to glow with magical energy when used, and smoke that takes the shape of a dragon when exhaled).

catt0s_0fthenight said:
- permanent_transformation -> implied_permanent_transformation

tags still need something visible to imply the thing. I don't think that works any better.

transformative could mean transformation_by_*, but I am not sure if it also could mean something that can transform. For example, "transformative_potion" if the potion has a label that says "potion that turns you into..." could be considered "transformative" but its presence might not always indicate a transformation.
Both growth and expansion both involve a 'change of form', but growth involves something that was not there before, whereas expansion involves changing the size of an existing thing.
I agree that the posts you mention shouldn't be considered transformation. Strictly speaking, mitosis and merging don't always involve a 'change of form', so you are right about that. I was actually thinking of fusion being merging, since they are often used interchangeably, and splitting instead of mitosis. Hopefully these make more sense, and I updated the BUR to change that.
--
For some context, many of these tags have more information all collected on the transformation page instead of on their own wiki. For example:

permanent_transformation - When a transformation is explicitly stated to be irreversible.

catt0s_0fthenight said:
For some context, many of these tags have more information all collected on the transformation page instead of on their own wiki. For example:

permanent_transformation - When a transformation is explicitly stated to be irreversible.

Yeah, but text is generally considered external information for tagging purposes. You can tag stuff about the text itself (e.g. if the word "fuck" appears you can tag profanity), but not information conveyed by the text (e.g. an ambiguous looking character that's stated to be male is still tagged ambiguous_gender). Text can be false, after all. A character can be told it's permanent but still change back, either because they were lied to or because the character had an ability to undo it others were unaware of, for example.

watsit said:
Yeah, but text is generally considered external information for tagging purposes. You can tag stuff about the text itself (e.g. if the word "fuck" appears you can tag profanity), but not information conveyed by the text (e.g. an ambiguous looking character that's stated to be male is still tagged ambiguous_gender). Text can be false, after all. A character can be told it's permanent but still change back, either because they were lied to or because the character had an ability to undo it others were unaware of, for example.

In my opinion, text can be used for tags, as long as the visuals don't contradict the text.

As in, it's not that the text is invalid, but the visual information has priority over the textual information.

So, in example, 2 posts that are meant to be a sequence of each other.

1st post - Character gets transformed into a shoe, and an outside character says it's permanent.
2nd post- Character is transformed back to normal.

First post still gets tagged as permanent_transformation, because the characters said it was, and there was nothing indicating the opposite.
Denying the tag because the character gets TFd back in the second post would be external information, in my understanding.

Edit: or maybe we could just use "implied_*" tags, so in this case, implied_permanent_transformation ?

m3g4p0n1 said:
In my opinion, text can be used for tags, as long as the visuals don't contradict the text.

That's not the case, as far as I know. post #1165923 post #1166082 and post #1167602 being prime examples where ambiguous_gender is locked on for the crow character, and male/male is locked off despite text on the image stating the characters are male and it's gay sex.

m3g4p0n1 said:
Edit: or maybe we could just use "implied_*" tags, so in this case, implied_permanent_transformation ?

tags still require a visual indication that it happened. implied_transformation, for example, relies on something like ill-fitting or mismatched clothing with an abnormal expression (e.g. a feral fox in a pile of human clothing with a confused expression, or a wolf anthro with torn clothing and an angry ferocious expression), or something to link a character with a changed appearance (e.g. an image depicting a photo of a human wearing a necklace, alongside seeing an animal wearing the same necklace).

catt0s_0fthenight said:
The bulk update request #4787 is pending approval.

create implication latex_transformation (1173) -> transformation (78334)
create implication feral_transformation (532) -> transformation (78334)
create implication taur_transformation (102) -> transformation (78334)
create implication human_transformation (1) -> transformation (78334)
create implication humanoid_transformation (3) -> transformation (78334)
create implication anthro_transformation (162) -> transformation (78334)
create implication consensual_transformation (211) -> transformation (78334)
create implication fusion (4979) -> transformation (78334)
create implication splitting (83) -> transformation (78334)
create implication twinning (487) -> transformation (78334)
create implication robotization (400) -> transformation (78334)
create implication plant_transformation (384) -> transformation (78334)
create implication body_part_transformation (90) -> transformation (78334)
create implication tf_into_fictional_character (679) -> transformation (78334)
create implication short_stackification (291) -> size_transformation (7443)
create implication toonification (114) -> transformation (78334)
create implication partial_transformation (191) -> transformation (78334)
create implication demi_transformation (284) -> transformation (78334)
create implication mid_transformation (9065) -> transformation (78334)
create implication asymmetrical_transformation (179) -> transformation (78334)
create implication permanent_transformation (494) -> transformation (78334)
create implication duo_transformation (126) -> transformation (78334)
create implication group_transformation (67) -> transformation (78334)
create implication slow_transformation (61) -> transformation (78334)
create implication egg_transformation (57) -> transformation (78334)

Reason: MOVED posts:
latex: topic #32232
willing: topic #35549, topic #37517 DISCUSS PLEASE
others From WIKI

- is growth always transformation "growing new body parts or muscles"

Yup, the tag "fusion" (in the way this tag is currently used) ISN'T a TF tag — but more accurately refers to a character that just happens to be a fusion of two others, often without any TF-ing involved.
The more TF-y version would be "merging" (or maybe "conjoned").

And there's currently a discussion on "plushification" vs. "plushie_transformation" — where the latter one would be "TF-ing into any kind of plushie" and the former one would be "the plushie version of something", I think.

tf_into_fictional_character is a weird tag name

cloudpie said:
tf_into_fictional_character is a weird tag name

There are a lot or weird tags. verbal_reaction_to_tf would apply to so many posts.

cloudpie said:
tf_into_fictional_character is a weird tag name

Yeah, though I'm not sure what would work better. It's for when a character transforms into a specific pre-established character (e.g. some rando transforming into Krystal), distinct from a mere species_transformation. character_transformation sounds too ambiguous, and fictional_character_transformation is also ambiguous and long.