Implicating link_(wolf_form) → wolf
Link to implication

Reason:

I know that normally implications character -> species are bad idea, but in this case if link_(wolf_form) is not a wolf then he should be tagged just link instead.

Should a person cosplaying as wolf link be tagged wolf, then? People cosplaying as pokemon do get the pokemon's tag, but not the tag for the species the pokemon represents.

Furrin_Gok said:
Should a person cosplaying as wolf link be tagged wolf, then? People cosplaying as pokemon do get the pokemon's tag, but not the tag for the species the pokemon represents.

I completely forgot about cosplaying. However people cosplaying as a pokemon, or any other species, are generally getting the species tag. Like post #461559 and majority tagged with cosplay pokemon So if person is cosplaying a wolf (including link-wolf) they would probably be tagged with species tag even without any implication.
I don't know if it's correct way to deal with cosplay or just a bad tagging.

Furrin_Gok said:
Should a person cosplaying as wolf link be tagged wolf, then?

That is how we've tagged fursuits and cosplay so far, yes. If someone's wearing a wolf costume, it tends to get tagged as wolf.

The other alternative would be to create numerous tags such as wolf_outfit, and I dunno if that'd be worthwhile.

Genjar said:
The other alternative would be to create numerous tags such as wolf_outfit, and I dunno if that'd be worthwhile.

Let me just go on record saying that I really don't think that's a good idea, since we'd need a tag for pretty much every character and species, it could mess with species implications in a bad way, and its not something intuitive to search/blacklist.

Genjar said:
That is how we've tagged fursuits and cosplay so far, yes. If someone's wearing a wolf costume, it tends to get tagged as wolf.

The other alternative would be to create numerous tags such as wolf_outfit, and I dunno if that'd be worthwhile.

mudkip
mudkip_costume
mudkip_cosplay
mudkip_disguise

...yeah we better just stick with the simpler method.

Normally this wouldn't work, but this is a unique exception where it doesn't have the usual problems. So, I'm approving it.

Um, I'm a bit late to the party, but what if someone decides to draw, I dunno, a gerbil or something based on Wolf Link?

Durandal said:
Um, I'm a bit late to the party, but what if someone decides to draw, I dunno, a gerbil or something based on Wolf Link?

Link_(gerbil_form) or some form of hybrid.

Though if other canon transformations start popping up this might become problematic... however there aren't many popular ones like this right now (possibly the ones from Majora's Mask, but I don't really see those here).

Durandal said:
Um, I'm a bit late to the party, but what if someone decides to draw, I dunno, a gerbil or something based on Wolf Link?

For it to be Wolf Link (and not just normal Link) there's going to have to be some wolf in there, so at best it's going to be some kind of wolf hybrid. If there's no wolf visible, then it's just regular Link being drawn as a gerbil. So it would be tagged with the regular Link character tag + gerbil.

I just brought up this tag in a suggestion and took a look at it...

post #782209 I think I found an exception to the implication.

Furrin_Gok said:
I just brought up this tag in a suggestion and took a look at it...

post #782209 I think I found an exception to the implication.

How does the wolf form tag apply to this? It just looks like a generic transformation to me.

parasprite said:
How does the wolf form tag apply to this? It just looks like a generic transformation to me.

Not only does it have the right colors, but it has the same symbol upon the forehead, the blue "tag" is in the exact same spot as the blue earring, and it's got the "dreadlocks" mane.

Furrin_Gok said:
Not only does it have the right colors, but it has the same symbol upon the forehead, the blue "tag" is in the exact same spot as the blue earring, and it's got the "dreadlocks" mane.

But that's clearly not a wolf, and I don't see how it could be tagged as one by TWYS. And it's not canon, so Link + alternate_species seems like the best fit.

what if someone tries to draw the wolf form but it ends up looking more like dog than wolf

Mutisija said:
what if someone tries to draw the wolf form but it ends up looking more like dog than wolf

→ canine

Genjar said:
But that's clearly not a wolf, and I don't see how it could be tagged as one by TWYS. And it's not canon, so Link + alternate_species seems like the best fit.

It's specifically link_(wolf_form) alternate_species. Which is why we still need to remove the implication.

Another non-wolf image:
post #984888

Obviously, Nick Wilde is a feralized fox, not a wolf.

I'm just going to shout into the void for the umpteenth time because this still hasn't been fixed.

If Charizard is not necessarily some form of lizard, then wolf Link can also be considered a distinct character.

"We don't implicate species to characters."

>Species implicated to a distinct character

Fenrick said:
I'm just going to shout into the void for the umpteenth time because this still hasn't been fixed.

If Charizard is not necessarily some form of lizard, then wolf Link can also be considered a distinct character.

"We don't implicate species to characters."

>Species implicated to a distinct character

Except Charizard doesn't transform into something explicitly called a lizard, with a form named after said lizard.

kamimatsu said:
Except Charizard doesn't transform into something explicitly called a lizard, with a form named after said lizard.

The fact that this beast happens to be a transformation of Link is irrelevant. We don't tag Mega Lucario as Lucario.

Furrin_Gok said:
It's specifically link_(wolf_form) alternate_species. Which is why we still need to remove the implication.

Another non-wolf image:
post #984888

Obviously, Nick Wilde is a feralized fox, not a wolf.

I agree with this. That image does not contain a wolf yet the wolf tag is there anyway just because Nick is cosplaying as Wolf Link. Even if a character's name specifies a species, form, etc. it shouldn't ever implicate said species, form, etc. because there's always the chance that they will be depicted as something else.

kamimatsu said:
Except Charizard doesn't transform into something explicitly called a lizard, with a form named after said lizard.

Charmeleon does though. Turns into Charizard. Char + lizard.

On topic: I think this is a bad implication and ought to be removed.

Wolf-link looks distinctly different as a character from Link. Let's take the examples given and analyze them:

post #782209

Does this character look anything like this Link? No. Not at all. There is, in fact, no similarity whatsoever.

What would you expect that link to look like as another species? Probably something like this.

The only way, in fact, that it is possible to relate that image back to link is through a middle-man, which is this form. If you did not know of this form of Link, it would seem ridiculous to suggest that the contained Link at all. So why then is the correct tag link rather than wolf_link, when that is clearly not the character the image is based on?

Furthermore, this way of doing things clearly impedes searching. If I want to find images of characters that look like Wolf-Link, but as a different species, I have no way at all to distinguish those from images where Link's base form is depicted as a different species.

How does the wolf form tag apply to this? It just looks like a generic transformation to me.

Let me ask you this: Explain to me how you know that image is supposed to be Link, without referencing Wolf-Link in any capacity. Can you do that? What traits do you see that suggest that is Link?

Because, to me, I see no characteristic green hat. I see no sword. I see no triforce. I see no blond hair. I don't see a single trait that looks like Link. I only see traits that look like Wolf-Link.

Fenrick said:
The fact that this beast happens to be a transformation of Link is irrelevant. We don't tag Mega Lucario as Lucario.

Exactly.

Honestly, the way that so many people cite pokemon when they try to justify the weird ways this place handles character and species tags tells me that pokemon species tags should be character tags more than it tells me that these policies are valid.

Beanjam said:
Honestly, the way that so many people cite pokemon when they try to justify the weird ways this place handles character and species tags tells me that pokemon species tags should be character tags more than it tells me that these policies are valid.

If they were changed to characters, there would be an equal number of weird things, just in a different direction.

As an obvious example, you could have multiple Pokemon of the same species interacting sexually, so if they're treated as characters, that would make it selfcest, yes? But no, we'd have an exception to that.

Another obvious example: Artists often have Pokemon characters of their own (example: bri). So... a Pokemon is two characters simultaneously then? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Well, good news! The implication is no more, courtesy of Rainbow Dash's removal four days ago.