Implicating link_(wolf_form) → link
Link to implication

Reason:

Some, but not all images tagged with the former are also tagged with the latter, and it seems appropriate.

EDIT: The tag implication link_(wolf_form) -> link (forum #200657) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.

forum #151949

For the record, I'm still against it. Any images of wolf link that are tagged as link should have the Link tag removed, because that prevents us from finding images containing both forms in them.

Last I remember, this is supposed to remain unimplicated. If a person is only looking for Link, in his human form, they are not looking for Link in their wolf form. Implying the wolf form to the normal one makes that impossible. It'd have wolf form scattered with the normal form.

This is the same argument with mega evolutions, all mega evolutions are seperately tagged, because they are visually different.

Furrin_Gok said:
because that prevents us from finding images containing both forms in them.

There is already a tag solely for that function: square_crossover

Beanjam said:
There is already a tag solely for that function: square_crossover

How do we know we're getting both forms of Link and not both forms of a Zelda or Midna, though?

Furrin_Gok said:
How do we know we're getting both forms of Link and not both forms of a Zelda or Midna, though?

Just separate them out manually like with any other edge case. It's not like that one possible search request would be worth having the Link tag work differently than all the other other character tags. I mean who the fuck is going to think "Ah man, I'll bet Link has a totally different tag for when he's a wolf unlike literally all the other characters when they're a different species or sex"?

Beanjam said:
Just separate them out manually like with any other edge case. It's not like that one possible search request would be worth having the Link tag work differently than all the other other character tags.

You mean like ashchu and various feral druids from WoW, etc?
It's hardly the only tag that's separated.

Having separate tags makes sense in the cases when the forms look completely different.

Edit: Actually, never mind. Ashchu just got implicated couple of weeks ago, even though the implication thread says that it was denied. So I guess that's that.

I still think that square_crossover is a bad tag, though. So far nobody's managed to explain why it's named that. (Relevant: https://derpibooru.org/forums/meta/topics/square-crossover)

Oh hah! I didn't realize it was a thread I made.

But haven't been here for a long time now, I think that the implication should NOT be done.

Link and his wolf form are (to me) two different characters, so having them both implicated together would make specific search terms difficult.

Genjar said:
Having separate tags makes sense in the cases when the forms look completely different.

-
(em mine)

TheGreatWolfgang said:
Link and his wolf form are (to me) two different characters, so having them both implicated together would make specific search terms difficult.

These are good points

I think it may be more accurate to say that they're different body types (forms), but the same character
(It's still Link from TLoZ, not another character named Link)

-
It seems more intuitive to have a separate tag for situations like those, rather than break the nested relationships with Link and his alternate_forms
(could've sworn that tag was more populated..)
-

Suggestion: How about something like alternate_form_selfcest?

• alternate_form_selfcest
• alternate_form
• selfcest

titanmelon said:
It seems more intuitive to have a separate tag for situations like those, rather than break the nested relationships with Link and his alternate_forms
(could've sworn that tag was more populated..)

I'm pretty sure that tag was more populated, too. The cow variation of Link's wolf form should have alternate_form, for example.

Furrin_Gok said:
I'm pretty sure that tag was more populated, too. The cow variation of Link's wolf form should have alternate_form, for example.

You might be thinking of alternate_species. I don't see any mass-removals of alternate_form in the logs, it hasn't been used a lot.

Genjar said:
You might be thinking of alternate_species. I don't see any mass-removals of alternate_form in the logs, it hasn't been used a lot.

Ah, right. That's the tag I was thinking of.

titanmelon said:
I think it may be more accurate to say that they're different body types (forms), but the same character
(It's still Link from TLoZ, not another character named Link)

-
It seems more intuitive to have a separate tag for situations like those, rather than break the nested relationships with Link and his alternate_forms
(could've sworn that tag was more populated..)
-

Suggestion: How about something like alternate_form_selfcest?

• alternate_form_selfcest
• alternate_form
• selfcest

I'd argue Link even only in his Hylian form is more than one character but that lies outside TWYS :P

I'd personally find it more useful from a searching perspective to keep these kind of very different character morphs separate. But I see the beauty of a separate tag for this as well. Not entirely sure what would be better.

Chessax said:
I'd argue Link even only in his Hylian form is more than one character but that lies outside TWYS :P

Link vs Toon_link.

Furrin_Gok said:
Link vs Toon_link.

True, but even more than that.

While we're here, I want to call attention to this implication:
https://e621.net/forum/show/146296

post #946274

The image shows the wolf form of Link drawn as a tiger, but the wolf tag cannot be removed.

Last time I got the argument that it must be tagged with the regular "Link" tag. The problem is that, for all tagging purposes, these should be considered two completely different characters. Think about how TWYS applies here. Well I see Wolf Link, not human Link, being drawn as a different species. Yes, in-universe, they are the same individual, but aesthetically they have absolutely no similarities whatsoever, and that is supposed to be all that matters here.

Again, there is nothing "linking" (sorry) this picture to the human iteration of Link. There clearly is to the wolf form.

The same logic which dictates that we cannot imply Canine -> Arcanine should apply here, but it doesn't.

We don't tag "Mega_Lucario" with Lucario even though Mega Lucario is just a temporarily altered Lucario

Am I the only one not seeing consistency?

Fenrick said:
While we're here, I want to call attention to this implication:
https://e621.net/forum/show/146296

post #946274

The image shows the wolf form of Link drawn as a tiger, but the wolf tag cannot be removed.

Last time I got the argument that it must be tagged with the regular "Link" tag. The problem is that, for all tagging purposes, these should be considered two completely different characters. Think about how TWYS applies here. Well I see Wolf Link, not human Link, being drawn as a different species. Yes, in-universe, they are the same individual, but aesthetically they have absolutely no similarities whatsoever, and that is supposed to be all that matters here.

Again, there is nothing "linking" (sorry) this picture to the human iteration of Link. There clearly is to the wolf form.

I would still tag it as link_(wolf_form) alternate_species. Since we all know that it "looks" like Link's wolf form but isn't really a wolf. This is a special case in which the wolf implication is invalid here.

TheGreatWolfgang said:
I would still tag it as link_(wolf_form) alternate_species. Since we all know that it "looks" like Link's wolf form but isn't really a wolf. This is a special case in which the wolf implication is invalid here.

I still see the link_(wolf_form) bovine as being wolf link too.

I'd argue link_(wolf_form) either shouldn't be tagged for these alternate_species posts, or wolf should be deimplicated from link_(wolf_form). Simply put they are mistags and maybe the implication is simply not working.

Chessax said:
I'd argue link_(wolf_form) either shouldn't be tagged for these alternate_species posts, or wolf should be deimplicated from link_(wolf_form). Simply put they are mistags and maybe the implication is simply not working.

I can concur with the latter. We shouldn't have assumptions that the species of the character would always be the same, in which case alternate_species would invalidate the wolf implication.

So that means (if any) future implications on the species of specific characters should be denied.

I think the only reason the "Wolf" implication was permitted was because it's in the tag: link_(wolf_form). If that's where the problem lies, maybe we should rename the tag, to something like "Cursed form" since it's from the Twilight curse.

Bumping this because we have another "wolf" form here . I'm in favor of removing the implication to wolf & canine.

Now that the Animal Crossing: New Leaf update's been released, should there be an implication for W. Link, the anthromorphized Wolf Link villager?

Penguinempire-Dennis said:
Now that the Animal Crossing: New Leaf update's been released, should there be an implication for W. Link, the anthromorphized Wolf Link villager?

W._Link -> Animal Crossing

Maybe alias it to W._link_(animal_crossing) first to clearly define it as the villager, not the cursed Hyrulian.

This has been brought up a thousand times, can we get some kind of ruling on this please?

Am I the only one that finds it a little odd that you're arguing over whether two forms of the same character should have the same name attached without acknowledging that Link refers to about 10 different characters? So many similar yet different characters under the same tag is okay but different forms of the same character under the same tag isn't, even if more specific tags are included to differentiate those forms?

What if we tagged Link in human form as link_(human_form) and implicate that to link?

The tag implication link_(wolf_form) -> link (forum #200657) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.