Now, I always thought the relevant term here was square_crossover, but that's actually implicated by selfcest so it can't be what I mean here.

What I mean is when one character is paired with themselves, but specifically, another version of themselves.

A couple of examples:

post #1143321 post #916097

And these aren't technically selfcest, since Pokemon are treated as a species rather than characters (a treatment I consider appropriate), but this is similar enough to warrant mentioning:

post #940872 post #412652

The gist of this is that a character is paired with themselves, but not the same form.

As it is, it seems like there's no way to distinguish that sort of art from the other form of selfcest:

post #1135784 post #932962

Wherein a character is paired with an identical or near-identical version of themselves.

So yeah. I'm sort of curious if there is a tag I don't know about, or if not, if it would be worth creating one. It is something that I would search for, but I don't know if anyone else cares about the distinction.

I believe we have not such tag.

Maybe would be better to have a tag for any square crossover involving identical or nearly-identical versions of a character, don't matter if they are engaged in sexual activity or not. This way, we would have the distinction you are searching for, but extended for non-sexual situations too.

p.s. sorry for the late answer.

I don't think there needs to be a special tag for "when two exact copies fuck each other"...we should just start adding the "clone" tag to images like these:

post #932962

Then you search for "clone selfcest" and you'd have two duplicate characters fucking each other.

This does bring up some interesting questions though...

• Are clone pictures still square_crossover?
• Do clone characters need to be wearing the same clothes and have the same hairstyle?
• Do clone characters need to be the same gender? (personally I think they do, otherwise it's an alternate version)

Clawdragons said:
What I mean is when one character is paired with themselves, but specifically, another version of themselves.

dual_persona

selfcest covers different versions of the same character fucking each other. square_crossover sex could also work.

BlueDingo said:
dual_persona

Wait...you're saying this is dual_persona?

post #412652

No, that's just a square_crossover. There is nothing suggesting those are the two aspects of the same character. dual_persona is like when a character can transform into something or has another side of themselves that takes a psychical form, right? Basically a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde thing. I don't think the Lapras image qualifies.

EDIT:

I think saying "oh, but those aren't characters those are just species" is really pedantic. Even if they are not named characters, they are still characters and thus they can still be tagged with square_crossover.

Dyrone said:
Wait...you're saying this is dual_persona?

post #412652

No, that's just a square_crossover. There is nothing suggesting those are the two aspects of the same character. dual_persona is like when a character can transform into something or has another side of themselves that takes a psychical form, right? Basically a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde thing. I don't think the Lapras image qualifies.

Dual_persona and square_crossover only apply to established characters. The lapras example doesn't contain established characters. That one is just interspecies.

BlueDingo said:
Dual_persona and square_crossover only apply to established characters. The lapras example doesn't contain established characters. That one is just interspecies.

Where is that written? I don't see the wiki saying "established characters" it just says "characters".

Honestly I think someone searching for the "square_crossover" tag would be interested in that Lapras image, and it would be dumb not to include it.

EDIT:
And ofc dual_persona would need an established character otherwise there's no way to know if the two characters are really two sides of the same character...some outside information is required there. If you just throw out two rando no-name no-lore characters you can't know if they're a dual persona or not.

Dyrone said:
EDIT:
I think saying "oh, but those aren't characters those are just species" is really pedantic. Even if they are not named characters, they are still characters and thus they can still be tagged with square_crossover.

There needs to be 2 or more characters from copyrights for crossover, two or more instances of a character from a copyright for square crossover, and two or more recognizable instances of the same character for dual persona. I do not know where you got that connotation, a character is owned by a character owner and has a name; species can be owned by copyright owners but otherwise do not need a name (excluding the redundant species name).

Dyrone said:
Where is that written? I don't see the wiki saying "established characters" it just says "characters".

Honestly I think someone searching for the "square_crossover" tag would be interested in that Lapras image, I know I am, it would be dumb not to include it.

It is implied. How can you tell if there are two versions of the same character present if you don't know who the character is? It could just as easily be two different characters if neither have known identities.

This is just like the alternate_species debate I had some time ago. If you don't know who the character is then how could you possibly know what their original species is?

BlueDingo said:
It is implied. How can you tell if there are two versions of the same character present if you don't know who the character is? It could just as easily be two different characters if neither have known identities.

I don't know about you, but I can EASILY tell that those two characters are both meant to be Lapras.

Lapras is a species, but not in the traditional sense of the word. Every Lapras looks exactly the same (except for shinies), it's easy as hell to identify a Lapras vs. like a rabbit that can be a bunny rabbit, jackrabbit, snowshoe rabbit, etc.

Dyrone said:
I don't know about you, but I can EASILY tell that those two characters are both meant to be Lapras.

Lapras is a species, but not in the traditional sense of the word. Every Lapras looks exactly the same (except for shinies), it's easy as hell to identify a Lapras vs. like a rabbit that can be a bunny rabbit, jackrabbit, snowshoe rabbit, etc.

But they are separate entities, beings that aren't the same. They do exist in the same finite point of time together, and they are not of seperate copyrights, hence neither square crossover nor just crossover.

Dyrone said:
Lapras is a species, but not in the traditional sense of the word. Every Lapras looks exactly the same (except for shinies), it's easy as hell to identify a Lapras vs. like a rabbit that can be a bunny rabbit, jackrabbit, snowshoe rabbit, etc.

Look-alike =/= selfcest. That would only be selfcest if you can prove both lapras are the same lapras.

Siral_Exan said:
But they are separate entities, beings that aren't the same. They do exist in the same finite point of time together, and they are not of seperate cipyrights, hence neither square crossover nor just crossover.

First off...square crossovers don't have to be from separate copyrights...that's the entire point of the tag...I'm not even talking about crossovers here.

Secondly, Literally all the wiki says about square_crossover it about is "An instance wherein two or more versions of the same character meet each other"... that's the only criteria. The alternate version character doesn't have to come from a different time or place.

If Dr. Robotnik clones an evil Sonic, that character is from the same time and place as original Sonic, but when they meet it would still be a square_crossover.

BlueDingo said:
Look-alike =/= selfcest. That would only be selfcest if you can prove both lapras are the same lapras.

Ok, but a lot of the time you can't prove that with genderswapped selfcest (one of the most common forms of selfcest)...I don't know why I keep using Sonic as an example but if you make a straight-up genderswap of Sonic, like just sonic with tits and a pussy, that is not an established character (There are a lot of characters that come CLOSE like Sonia and Amy, obivously, but that's not what I'm talking about). However it's kind of common sense to see that and say "oh, that artist means for that to be a genderswapped Sonic" and tag it with selfcest...even if the artist never confirms this at all we can assume it.

Sometimes we need to simply read the intent behind the piece rather than being sticklers and saying "every character must be a REAL character!"

Dyrone said:
First off...square crossovers don't have to be from separate copyrights...that's the entire point of the tag...I'm not even talking about crossovers here.

Secondly, Literally all the wiki says about square_crossover it about is "An instance wherein two or more versions of the same character meet each other"... that's the only criteria. The alternate version character doesn't have to come from a different time or place.

If Dr. Robotnik clones an evil Sonic, that character is from the same time and place as original Sonic, but when they meet it would still be a square_crossover.

"Clone"... GG, no re. Clones are individuals, whereas a square crossover is the same character, to simplify it from another timeline or identical, but different, universe, meeting each other. They'd be the exact same if it weren't for the listed...

I thought I could get away with silent assumptions, but I guess not: copyright is the easiest way to say it, because those have some semblance of established lore, timelines, characters, and etc., instead of just characters. I shouldn't have to specify how many characters there are, and the lack of knowledge you can possess in comparison.

And crossover has to be from separate, square crossover is an individually meeting an instance of themselves that either (they) no longer exists or is from an alternate universe.

Siral_Exan said:
"Clone"... GG, no re. Clones are individuals, whereas a square crossover is the same character, to simplify it from another timeline or identical, but different, universe

A character from an alternate universe or timeline is still an individual. You just destroyed your entire argument in like...the first sentence. Please stop.

Dyrone said:
A character from an alternate universe is still an individual. You just destroyed your entire argument in like...the first sentence. Please stop.

That's how a square crossover works. You just tried calling a clone as the same being, yet criticize my usage of alternate universe, which has been shown before on site?

Seriously, if you don't know what you're talking about, don't act like you do. This facade you present isn't funny, and it isn't doing you any favors.

Dyrone said:
I don't know about you, but I can EASILY tell that those two characters are both meant to be Lapras.

I only see one Lapras, plus human trainer whose hairdo matches her Pokemon. Which is a common theme in Pokemon art. As far as I can see, there's no reason to assume that she's a humanized Lapras.

...well, okay, there's the eye and hair color, but is that really sufficient to assume that she's a Lapras? Humans are often drawn with odd hair-colors.

Siral_Exan said:
That's how a square crossover works. You just tried calling a clone as the same being, yet criticize my usage of alternate universe, which has been shown before on site?

Seriously, if you don't know what you're talking about, don't act like you do. This facade you present isn't funny, and it isn't doing you any favors.

No, I'm not "criticizing" your usage of alternate universe characters at all. I agree with that, but I didn't agree with your logic you were using to narrow it down to those characters. I think cloned characters could qualify for a square_crossover. Maybe I'm wrong, but by the definition on the wiki I feel like they fit in.

Genjar said:
I only see one Lapras, plus human trainer whose hairdo matches her Pokemon. Which is a common theme in Pokemon art. As far as I can see, there's no reason to assume that she's a humanized Lapras.

...well, okay, there's the eye and hair color, but is that really sufficient to assume that she's a Lapras? Humans are often drawn with odd hair-colors.

Well I thought she had little ears too. Kind of like a catgirl, but instead it's a Laprasgirl...they could be hair buns but I think they are ears.

The matching eye color is also a huge indicator for me.

Dyrone said:
No, I'm not "criticizing" your usage of alternate universe characters at all. I agree with that, but I didn't agree with your logic you were using to narrow it down to those characters. I think cloned characters could qualify for a square_crossover. Maybe I'm wrong, but by the definition on the wiki I feel like they fit in.

Then sorry for assuming. Clones are identical but different, whereas square crossover will be the same, but different. Within the variations of Sonic the hedgehog, they are all the same beings but look different; clones (or choose another word, like doppelgangers), will look the same, but can act different, and if they don't then you'll need to see multiple of them.

Clones can become separate characters, like your evil Sonic statement, but square crossovers are known to be the same character.

Siral_Exan said:
Clones can become separate characters, like your evil Sonic statement, but square crossovers are known to be the same character.

See...I still disagree with you because characters from alternative timelines and alternate dimensions can also become separate characters personality-wise. I mean it's a classic comic book trope to bring in the same hero from another dimension, but over there he's a horrible villain. They don't have to act the same at all.

Clones also don't have to look the same. They can do their hair different, wear different clothes, etc.

I am talking about an established clone though...if there is just a straight-up identical clone with no backstory then yeah, not a square_crossover. If there is a clone from the lore then I'd argue it would be a square_crossover...as it is just an alternate version of the same character.

Siral_Exan said:
Then sorry for assuming. Clones are identical but different, whereas square crossover will be the same, but different. Within the variations of Sonic the hedgehog, they are all the same beings but look different; clones (or choose another word, like doppelgangers), will look the same, but can act different, and if they don't then you'll need to see multiple of them.

Clones can become separate characters, like your evil Sonic statement, but square crossovers are known to be the same character.

A good example would be this:

post #708687
All five character are Sonic the Hedgehog but they all come from different series. In order:

1. Classic (Sonic 1-3)
2... I'm not sure. Archie comics version?
3. Modern (Sonic Adventure onwards)
4. Sonic Boom
5. Sonic Underground.

Dyrone said:
See...I still disagree with you because characters from alternative timelines and alternate dimensions can also become separate characters personality-wise. I mean it's a classic comic book trope to bring in the same hero from another dimension, but over there he's a horrible villain. They don't have to act the same at all.

But they're known to be the same character. KEY WORD: KNOWN, acting different is irrelevant.

Clones also don't have to look the same. They can do their hair different, wear different clothes, etc.

Clones are individual, they are collectively one or more of a being, not one from different universes or timelines.

I am talking about an established clone though...if there is just a straight-up identical clone with no backstory then yeah, not a square_crossover. If there is a clone from the lore then I'd argue it would be a square_crossover...as it is just an alternate version of the same character.

Read the above.

Siral_Exan said:
But they're known to be the same character. KEY WORD: KNOWN, acting different is irrelevant.

You are literally the one who was bringing up how they act, I was only trying to refute it as a consideration.

Siral_Exan said:
Clones are individual, they are collectively one or more of a being, not one from different universes or timelines.

Why do you keep bringing up universes and timelines? Where is that written? Nowhere. It's not on the wiki, it's not a requirement. You are like a broken record with this.

BlueDingo said:
A good example would be this:

post #708687

An excellent example to be sure, but by no means the only way the tag can be used.

BlueDingo said:
A good example would be this:

post #708687
All five character are Sonic the Hedgehog but they all come from different series. In order:

1. Classic (Sonic 1-3)
2... I'm not sure. Archie comics version?
3. Modern (Sonic Adventure onwards)
4. Sonic Boom
5. Sonic Underground.

I've been using that as an example. That is a square crossover, as you described they are different but are known as the same character.

Dyrone said:
You are literally the one who was bringing up how they act, I was only trying to refute it as a consideration.

Do you not know how alternate timelines work? I'll spare myself the explanation if you don't...

Why do you keep bringing up universes and timelines? Where is that written? Nowhere. It's not on the wiki, it's not a requirement. You are like a broken record with this.

Do you know how crossovers work? Again, will spare myself if you don't, because the usage "crossover" means something in "square crossover".

An excellent example to be sure, but by no means the only way the tag can be used.

Do you understand how to make simple arguments? Unless you want a list of characters that will apply to what you say, and a list that don't, let's stick with simple arguments. You're not wrong, but you are applying to logic that is wrong, so if you want to prove yourself right then feel free to make that list.

Siral_Exan said:
Do you know how crossovers work? Again, will spare myself if you don't, because the usage "crossover" means something in "square crossover".

Do you know how words and phrases work? They don't need to rigidly adhere to the words and phrases contained within them. For instance a "water bear" isn't an actual bear! The more you know

The word "crossover" seems to be used VERY loosely in square_crossover considering every single selfcest image also gets the square_crossover tag, and I'm sure all of those don't fit your own narrow definition of square_crossover. If you don't like it then advocate for the implication to be removed, but that's the official word for now.

Dyrone said:
Do you know how words and phrases work? They don't need to rigidly adhere to the words and phrases contained within them. For instance a "water bear" isn't an actual bear! The more you know

The word "crossover" seems to be used VERY loosely in square_crossover considering every single selfcest image also gets the square_crossover tag, and I'm sure all of those don't fit your own narrow definition of square_crossover. If you don't like it then advocate for the implication to be removed, but that's the official word for now.

a square crossover a a singular character meeting themselves. Two instances of the same character. A clone is a second character, they are not the same as the one they are based off. Hence "crossover", they usually come from a separate universe or separate timeline, crossing over into the one focused. This happens in Justice League when Superman and co. find a Lex Luther claiming to be from an alternate timeline (Superman discovers that it is true by checking on their Luther in prison and finding the present one has their organs in opposite areas of the body). This also occurs when Trunks goes back in time a second time to aid Goku against the androids, meeting his infant self in the process.

This does not occur when the clones are talking to each other in Star Wars, nor when Bizzaro and Superman meet; when Robin is inevitably replaced because reasons and the newer one meets an older one (the costume does not make the person), et cetera. The personalities between clones and alternate selves can be different: for clones, this is vital to determine which one is the original, and for alternate selves this is trivial and is only used to find out where/when they came from, for listing purposes because they do use the same name.

The tag dual persona would be the gilnean Genn Greymane meeting his worgen self, Genn Greymane, for the worgen and (most) gilnean possess the ability to shapeshift between those at will. Other examples include Kirby, Shantae, Link in Twilight Princess and in Link to the Past, and more I don't really bother with.

I agree that there's a significant distinction between a clone and a crossover entity such as would be found in a square crossover, but in the vast majority of cases I don't think it would be possible to distinguish a clone from a square crossover without relying on outside information.

Clawdragons said:
I agree that there's a significant distinction between a clone and a crossover entity such as would be found in a square crossover, but in the vast majority of cases I don't think it would be possible to distinguish a clone from a square crossover without relying on outside information.

I believe that it's one of the very few cases where TWYK is granted, but don't quote me on that.

Siral_Exan said:
I believe that it's one of the very few cases where TWYK is granted, but don't quote me on that.

I sincerely doubt it, but we'd have to have a word from an admin or something to be sure.

Clawdragons said:
I sincerely doubt it, but we'd have to have a word from an admin or something to be sure.

I'd find it odd if it isn't. There are games (hint hint HotS & SSB) that rely on crossovers, but yet also has original characters and thus is TWYK for which characters do and don't.

Clawdragons said:
I sincerely doubt it, but we'd have to have a word from an admin or something to be sure.

Who a character is is TWYK. If two characters happen to be the "Same character," it's TWYK.
However, are there really any cases where a character from two completely different sources are still the exact same character? Alucard_(castlevania) and alucard_(hellsing), for example, would not qualify as selfcest. Even dracula_(castlevania) and alucard_(hellsing), though based on the same Count_Vladmir vampire mythos, come across as two completely different characters to me (And, any instance of a castlevanian Dracula should be tagged by its source, rather than the generic dracula tag).

Furrin_Gok said:
Who a character is is TWYK. If two characters happen to be the "Same character," it's TWYK.
However, are there really any cases where a character from two completely different sources are still the exact same character? Alucard_(castlevania) and alucard_(hellsing), for example, would not qualify as selfcest. Even dracula_(castlevania) and alucard_(hellsing), though based on the same Count_Vladmir vampire mythos, come across as two completely different characters to me (And, any instance of a castlevanian Dracula should be tagged by its source, rather than the generic dracula tag).

That raises an interesting, just for shits and giggles question: who'd beat who: Castlevania Dracula, or Hellsing Alucard?

Siral_Exan said:
That raises an interesting, just for shits and giggles question: who'd beat who: Castlevania Dracula, or Hellsing Alucard?

Judging from a quick read on Alucard, he wants to be killed, and seeks a worthy opponent (preferably human, apparently?) to actually do him in. Castlevania's Dracula is immortal, constantly coming back to life (Until 1999, at least) every so often and using all sorts of unnatural tricks to defeat his foes. As with Alucard, Dracula possesses transformation abilities, but if Soma Cruz and the other Dracula Candidates are anything to go on, there's a lot more to his power than regeneration, reincarnation, and transformation. With CHAOS (Soma's initial final antagonist) at his back, Dracula would most certainly win.

Furrin_Gok said:
Judging from a quick read on Alucard, he wants to be killed, and seeks a worthy opponent (preferably human, apparently?) to actually do him in. Castlevania's Dracula is immortal, constantly coming back to life (Until 1999, at least) every so often and using all sorts of unnatural tricks to defeat his foes. As with Alucard, Dracula possesses transformation abilities, but if Soma Cruz and the other Dracula Candidates are anything to go on, there's a lot more to his power than regeneration, reincarnation, and transformation. With CHAOS (Soma's initial final antagonist) at his back, Dracula would most certainly win.

maybe but dracula would have to do a fuck ton of damage since hellsing's alucard has that river of death (Hellsing Ultimate) thing made of the millions of people he drained of blood over the years. could CHAOS defeat that kind of power?

edit: yes...oh YES! it finally happened! DRIFTERS

oh how i've waited to see this happen. ^_^