The tag implication #74423 implied_gender_transformation -> implied_transformation is pending approval.

Reason: [implied_gender_transformation] is a type of [implied_transformation]

implied_transformation is barely viable as it is, but I don't see how implied_gender_transformation can work as TWYS. To be implied means the thing itself isn't directly indicated visually but can be inferred from clues (e.g. a feral looking confused in a set of clothes), but for implied_gender_transformation to work, it needs something to visually indicate a gender transformation happened instead of any other kind of transformation, making it not implied.

Looking at the uses of the tag, it seems most are based entirely on external knowledge
post #6108089 post #6206442 post #5944309
for example give no hints that the character's sex changed, it's only based on knowing the character's canon sex, or
post #6460637
where it's only specified in dialog (which counts as external information).

Other cases like
post #6321455 post #6402725
shows enough to directly indicate gender_transformation, making it not implied.

The bulk update request #14677 is pending approval.

change category implied_gender_transformation (228) -> invalid

Reason: implied_* tags should not exist.

beholding said:
The bulk update request #14677 is pending approval.

change category implied_gender_transformation (228) -> invalid

Reason: implied_* tags should not exist.

This along with after_transformation should probably actually be aliased to implied_transformation instead. There is certainly value in tagging for implied transformation like when there are obvious signs such as torn human clothing being on a feral for example but such specificity as the gender of the implied transformation is unneeded and a lot trickier to actually see then transformation in general.

watsit said:
[...]
Other cases like
post #6321455 post #6402725
shows enough to directly indicate gender_transformation, making it not implied.

First of all the image portrait pre-transformation in the first thumbnail would be implied, it does not provide certainty.

Secondly it seems rather inconsistent that photos are acceptable yet obviously spoken visualized dialog is not..

i feel like this should depend on how strongly its implied, and should have heavy visual clues

ryu_deacon said:
This along with after_transformation should probably actually be aliased to implied_transformation instead.

There's plenty of after_transformations that aren't implied, either because it's a sequence which shows the aftermath (beyond the mere completion) or there's some other direct indication in the post.

ryu_deacon said:
Secondly it seems rather inconsistent that photos are acceptable yet obviously spoken visualized dialog is not..

Photos are a visible element of the image you can see, the meaning and truthfulness of dialog isn't.

watsit said:
Photos are a visible element of the image you can see, the meaning and truthfulness of dialog isn't.

You keep claiming this and it keeps being nonsense. Dialogue is an element of the image and its truthfulness isn't any more uncertain than an image.

watsit said:
Photos are a visible element of the image you can see, the meaning and truthfulness of dialog isn't.

Dialog that is visibly spoken by a character in a text bubble is also a visible element you can see, meaning or truthfulness cannot be ascertained by a photo ether, even visual aspects such as torn clothing on a feral character is not actually necessarily truthful, we at the end of the day just assume the most plausible in most after transformation or implied transformation if they are not part of comics or sequences thru if these tags were only be applicable to sequences and comics then they would be unnecessarily redundant.

beholding said:
You keep claiming this and it keeps being nonsense.

Then how do you explain all the tag wars and locks that have resulted in people tagging based on dialog, with locks siding against assuming dialog is accurate?
post #2791322
for example. You keep pushing back whenever this is said, and keep being given examples showing it.

ryu_deacon said:
Dialog that is visibly spoken by a character in a text bubble is also a visible element you can see

Yes, and you can tag for the dialog itself, but not based on what it means. A character that says something like "I'm going to fuck you." can be tagged profanity since "fuck" is a swear word regardless of meaning, but it shouldn't be tagged imminent_sex based on that dialog as it depends on a specific meaning and whether the character intends to follow through on it.

ryu_deacon said:
meaning or truthfulness cannot be ascertained by a photo ether

"Truthfulness" or "meaning" isn't a question with a photo, you tag based on what you see in the photo. If you see a character as a human in the photo and the same character as an animal outside of the photo, you can see there was a transformation. Nothing about "truthfulness" or "meaning" applies to the photo.

watsit said:
Yes, and you can tag for the dialog itself, but not based on what it means. A character that says something like "I'm going to fuck you." can be tagged profanity since "fuck" is a swear word regardless of meaning, but it shouldn't be tagged imminent_sex based on that dialog as it depends on a specific meaning and whether the character intends to follow through on it.

The definition of the tag imminent_sex is literally (emphasis mine):

This tag is used when the post makes it very clear through dialogue, expressions, gestures, and/or positioning of the characters that they are about to have sex.

watsit said:
"Truthfulness" or "meaning" isn't a question with a photo, you tag based on what you see in the photo. If you see a character as a human in the photo and the same character as an animal outside of the photo, you can see there was a transformation. Nothing about "truthfulness" or "meaning" applies to the photo.

"you see a character as a human in the photo and the same character as an animal outside of the photo" is a claim about the photo's meaning. A 'photo' in an image that depicts a character of a different species could very easily just be two different characters, or the character's fursona, or an in-universe bit of fanart, etc.

somdudewillson said:
The definition of the tag imminent_sex is literally (emphasis mine):

This tag is used when the post makes it very clear through dialogue, expressions, gestures, and/or positioning of the characters that they are about to have sex.

A tag's wiki doesn't change how tagging works, we do not tagged based off of dialogue lest we get into ceci n'est pas une pipe territory

somdudewillson said:
A 'photo' in an image that depicts a character of a different species could very easily just be two different characters, or the character's fursona, or an in-universe bit of fanart, etc.

Characters have always been the exception to TWYS. If an artist says someone is a specific character, it's treated and tagged as that character even if it's not their canonical appearance.

donovan_dmc said:
A tag's wiki doesn't change how tagging works, we do not tagged based off of dialogue lest we get into ceci n'est pas une pipe territory

Don't tag off of dialogue is the general rule, but there are absolutely exceptions. There are quite a few tags exclusively or primarily describing the contents of dialogue. (explicitly_stated_consent, explicitly_stated_nonconsent, impregnation_request, good_girl, etc.) And then there's stuff like, say, rape - should obviously-rape posts be downgraded to questionable_consent because it wouldn't be obvious without the dialogue?

watsit said:
Characters have always been the exception to TWYS. If an artist says someone is a specific character, it's treated and tagged as that character even if it's not their canonical appearance.

...and? That quote is me pointing out that a depiction of a photo in an image does not have one incontrovertible intrinsic meaning. You claimed that

watsit said:
"Truthfulness" or "meaning" isn't a question with a photo

and you are literally describing a method by which the question of a photo's ambiguous meaning can be answered.

watsit said:
Then how do you explain all the tag wars and locks that have resulted in people tagging based on dialog, with locks siding against assuming dialog is accurate?
post #2791322
for example. You keep pushing back whenever this is said, and keep being given examples showing it.

This is the first time I've seen this policy actually enforced. In which case, fine, but I still think it's bad policy for the reasons Somdudewillson and I have brought up. In addition to the countless wiki descriptions contradicting it (you really ought to clean those up if they're in violation of site policy), dialogue can in fact significantly change how an image is viewed (as mentioned by several commenters on the post you linked).

I will also say you are going to be doing tag cleanup for the next few years if you plan to retroactively enforce this on the site's backlog of rape and questionable_consent posts. In the likely case no one steps up to do that, people are going to continue tagging based on how existing posts are tagged.

beholding said:
dialogue can in fact significantly change how an image is viewed

I will also say you are going to be doing tag cleanup for the next few years if you plan to retroactively enforce this on the site's backlog of rape and questionable_consent posts. In the likely case no one steps up to do that, people are going to continue tagging based on how existing posts are tagged.

These are excellent points.

Personally, I'd say that dialog should be considered in some instances if it is 'probable' and doesn't explicitly contradict TWYS or tag definitions.

So, if a character says 'I have green fur', but they actually have brown fur, you would obviously tag 'brown fur'.

But if a character is at a cash and says 'I'm stealing money', you should be able to tag 'stealing' even if you can't see the money in their hand.

donovan_dmc said:
A tag's wiki doesn't change how tagging works, we do not tagged based off of dialogue lest we get into ceci n'est pas une pipe territory

Been ruminating on this for the past day. I would say that while this is a valid edge case problem, it is also a very rare one. Very few artists set out to deliberately use dialogue to contradict visual elements, and ones that do are almost always very obvious about it. Moreover, it is extremely easy to resolve: As Kyiiel just said above, simply make a rule hierarchy saying that visual elements trump dialogue when the two conflict.

Additionally, I have been considering proposing something like a general tag to cover the concept demonstrated by the_treachery_of_images -- maybe call it "metafuckery" -- to cover weird posts that are deliberately designed to screw with our tagging system. Would that be acceptable to plug the gap of weird edge cases?

watsit said:
post #2791322

Also: For this post and posts like it, I'd like to propose a compromise. Given the continued existence of *_stated and *_mention tags, we are clearly allowed to make tags that refer to dialogue elements themselves. Could we create a urine_mention or stated_urine tag for this post? I feel that would appease the TWYS purists who, rightly, feel like urine should not be tagged in a post where no urine is visibly present while still accommodating s who do not want to encounter any urine-related content.

beholding said:
Additionally, I have been considering proposing something like a general tag to cover the concept demonstrated by the_treachery_of_images -- maybe call it "metafuckery" -- to cover weird posts that are deliberately designed to screw with our tagging system. Would that be acceptable to plug the gap of weird edge cases?

I don't think they do it just to mess with our dated tag, but the artist rattfood often puts blatantly false copyright dates on their artwork:

post #4584565 post #5339257

Would your tag idea cover that kind of thing?

chemistrynoisy said:
I don't think they do it just to mess with our dated tag, but the artist rattfood often puts blatantly false copyright dates on their artwork:

post #4584565 post #5339257

Would your tag idea cover that kind of thing?

I was imagining it more for things that were "untaggable" or self-contradictory, but I haven't hashed out a clear definition yet.

This is drifting off-topic though.