Implicating ahri_(lol) → vastaya
Link to implication

Reason:

Riot Games released a set of champions that are part of the Vastaya race and Ahri is one of them.

https://universe.leagueoflegends.com/en_US/race/vastaya/

-1 because alternate_species and cosplay.

-1, what happens when Ahri doesn't look like a "vastaya"? This goes for the rest of your suggestions, too: this site had tried to imply characters to species, and it failed hard. Funny thing about art is the characters portrayed in it don't need to look like themselves to be tagged as such. We have a tag specifically for that, alternate_species. We also have cosplay for when characters of any sort are dressing up in a costume depicting another character, and the prior character also does not need to look like the latter's species.

Long story short, the implications will not always be true. If they're not always true, they need to be tagged manually instead of implied.

What hte others have said, plus, Vastaya isn't really an identifiable race.

They're described as "chimeric creatures of Runeterra whose lineage contains both human blood and the spiritual magic of a pre-human race. ... vastaya can look considerably different from one another, but they all share animal and human characteristics."

I mean, rakan, zayah and Ahri are animal_humanoids. Wukong and rengar are anthros, while Nami's some sort of merfolk. The header picture shows what looks like a more humanoid cat anthro, some sort of cat/insect and maybe a green skinned elf?? there's a "cat-snake-ape boy" listed elsewhere.

Now, I could *try* to make an argument for grouping a collection of beings together... like the cutie_mark_crusaders_(mlp or, uh.. Team R.W.B.Y, or "Cenarion Circle" or "team red" or whatever... except in LoL, there's not much of a connection between characters from different regions--Demacians, and ionians etc, y'know?

I agree with the above. While implying a character to it's species sounds like a good idea, think about transformation, ponification, or just this comic page. In the linked post, everyone who's ever heard the word "Nintendo" can see that this is link but they can also see that he is not an elf, so implying link to elf obviously wouldn't work here and therefore can't be done. The same logic can be applied to any character and it's species.

SnowWolf said:
Now, I could *try* to make an argument for grouping a collection of beings together... like the cutie_mark_crusaders_(mlp or, uh.. Team R.W.B.Y, or "Cenarion Circle" or "team red" or whatever... except in LoL, there's not much of a connection between characters from different regions--Demacians, and ionians etc, y'know?

Yeah to me implying a species tag to a character only when it's with other characters of the same species sounds a bit wierd:/ plus what I wrote above still applies. Assume for example that they were drawn as ponies.

BlueDingo said:
-1 because alternate_species and cosplay.

Not sure what Cosplay has to do with it, that's a whole different topic imo because Cosplayers will do whatever they want without any disregard to what the character they are cosplaying is. Shouldn't this have more to do with what Ahri & other's actually are?

as for alternate_species, I suppose I would understand that if there wasn't already a vastaya tag, with images including both Ahri and Nami under that tag.

SnowWolf said:
What hte others have said, plus, Vastaya isn't really an identifiable race.

They're described as "chimeric creatures of Runeterra whose lineage contains both human blood and the spiritual magic of a pre-human race. ... vastaya can look considerably different from one another, but they all share animal and human characteristics."

I mean, rakan, zayah and Ahri are animal_humanoids. Wukong and rengar are anthros, while Nami's some sort of merfolk. The header picture shows what looks like a more humanoid cat anthro, some sort of cat/insect and maybe a green skinned elf?? there's a "cat-snake-ape boy" listed elsewhere.

Like said above, there's already a vastaya tag, therefore someone deemed it an identifiable race at some point. On top of this, Vastaya is a race created by Riot Games, it is in it's own universe and is therefore not linked to anything else and will be updated if any other Vastaya are to be added to the game.

SnowWolf said:
Now, I could *try* to make an argument for grouping a collection of beings together... like the cutie_mark_crusaders_(mlp or, uh.. Team R.W.B.Y, or "Cenarion Circle" or "team red" or whatever... except in LoL, there's not much of a connection between characters from different regions--Demacians, and ionians etc, y'know?

You mean a connection as in, for example, Ahri and Irelia being both Ionian, but having no real connection in lore otherwise?
If not I can understand, I suppose. Even though it is in it's own universe, "Ionian" or "Demacian" and so on arn't much of a "group" as they are more of a way of differentiating who is against who.

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
I agree with the above. While implying a character to it's species sounds like a good idea, think about transformation, ponification, or just this comic page. In the linked post, everyone who's ever heard the word "Nintendo" can see that this is link but they can also see that he is not an elf, so implying link to elf obviously wouldn't work here and therefore can't be done. The same logic can be applied to any character and it's species.

Yeah to me implying a species tag to a character only when it's with other characters of the same species sounds a bit wierd:/ plus what I wrote above still applies. Assume for example that they were drawn as ponies.

Isn't "Ponification" and "Transformation" essentially the same thing? Why would there be 2 separate tags for that? You might as well include Furry_Transformation or Scalie_Transformation (im not that creative man but you get the point)
I understand what you're getting at with the comic, however, you can clearly see that he still has 'elf' ears. He is still partially elven, so "elf" would still be a relative tag, or even half_elf, imo, and just include the "transformation" tag, or something similar.

I know what you're getting at with that, though.

If you look through the ahri_(lol) images you most likely won't find anything Ahri where she does not have her tail and/or ears. The only thing I found was this comic , where, even though it started with, and near the end, had her with no tails / ears, she had them at one point and the comic established that this was Ahri. Ahri is, by the creator, a Nine-Tailed Fox, a Gumiho if you prefer, and has 9 tails and ears. If she were to have different clothing that would be different, but taking away those features no longer makes her Ahri, she is just a girl with blue hair in an outfit that looks like Ahri, and then that would go under "Cosplay" I suppose (?).

Keep in mind that I didn't make this comment with the other characters (wukong, nami, rengar, ect) in mind.

Rayzr said:
Not sure what Cosplay has to do with it, that's a whole different topic imo because Cosplayers will do whatever they want without any disregard to what the character they are cosplaying is. Shouldn't this have more to do with what Ahri & other's actually are?

Anyone cosplaying as Ahri would get the ahri_(lol) tag regardless of what species they are. If the cosplayer's species doesn't match hers, this implication would lead to a mistag.

BlueDingo said:
Anyone cosplaying as Ahri would get the ahri_(lol) tag regardless of what species they are. If the cosplayer's species doesn't match hers, this implication would lead to a mistag.

I'm not sure if I understand what you mean by "what species they are"
As in because they are human? I suppose that's the whole point of Cosplaying, they are pretending to be Ahri, therefore pretending to be a character of the Vastayan race. I'm not sure how you guys would work out that kind of tagging. The cosplayer doesn't want to be seen as a human, they want to be seen as Ahri (or whoever they are cosplaying).

If you mean part of their outfit, for example, they are cosplaying Ahri except...Their skin is blue(idk man)? Then I ....suppose? However the example I gave is a bit far fetched, so if you can provide a better one, then please do so.

Rayzr said:
I'm not sure if I understand what you mean by "what species they are"
As in because they are human? I suppose that's the whole point of Cosplaying, they are pretending to be Ahri, therefore pretending to be a character of the Vastayan race. I'm not sure how you guys would work out that kind of tagging. The cosplayer doesn't want to be seen as a human, they want to be seen as Ahri (or whoever they are cosplaying).

What makes you think the cosplayer in question is human? The cosplay tag applies to anyone (not just humans) dressing up as another character.

To use another character as an example: Would you tag a character dressing up as Amy Rose as hedgehog just because Amy Rose is a hedgehog, even if the cosplayer looks nothing like a hedgehog?

Also, wearing fake ears and/or tails does not result in additional species tags (unless they're cosplaying as a species specifically) so even that wouldn't justify the vastaya tag on Ahri cosplays.

Rayzr said:
as for alternate_species, I suppose I would understand that if there wasn't already a vastaya tag, with images including both Ahri and Nami under that tag.

Like said above, there's already a vastaya tag, therefore someone deemed it an identifiable race at some point.

On top of this, Vastaya is a race created by Riot Games, it is in it's own universe and is therefore not linked to anything else and will be updated if any other Vastaya are to be added to the game.

Well, no one's saying it's a bad tag and needs to be destroyed, just that an implication's maybe not the best idea.

(but, separate of this conversation: Someone deciding to tag something doesn't mean that it's the best idea. We have people who tag all sorts of things that are improper, ill advised or just the wrong tag. But that is, again, separate of the conversation.)

You mean a connection as in, for example, Ahri and Irelia being both Ionian, but having no real connection in lore otherwise?
If not I can understand, I suppose. Even though it is in it's own universe, "Ionian" or "Demacian" and so on arn't much of a "group" as they are more of a way of differentiating who is against who.

Mmmm... A better (and spoiler free!) example: Luke Skywalker is part of the Rebel Alliance. So are Leia Organa, Han Solo, and Chewbacca.

You're suggesting that we should say that Luke_skywalker should imply human. But, the problem is that we have posts like post #228690 post #1399545 post #289245 where human is completely inappropriate.

However, if you wanted to argue that Luke_skywalker should imply rebel_alliance_member or rebel_alliance, or jedi, you're doing a lot better! It's a lot more likely that Luke will always be one of those... however, for example, Luke Skywalker, on Tattooine, gazing out at the binary sunset dreaming of the future, of escaping the rock he's spent his whole life on... He's not a rebel or a jedi. Not yet. Or you could have a picture where Luke decided to join the empire, or turned to the dark side.

So it's not really appropriate to say that Luke Skywalker is ALWAYS a rebel, or ALWAYS a jedi, or ALWAYS human or ALWAYS male. Not even things like ALWAYS blonde could fit-- what if someone drew a picture where he's bald? Or goth?

Implications are tricky things and are best saved for absolutes: Horses will ALWAYS be mammals (Of course, it's possible that the character creator might say that his horse/snake is a reptile, but if it's horse enough to LOOK like a horse, then it's horse enough to be tagged mammal, because we tag what we see, and someone who wants to see mammals will probably be content with the horse/snake, that was horse enough to be tagged horse.) Wolves will ALWAYS be canines. Luke Skywalker is ALWAYS part of the Star Wars franchise.

Chewbacca implying Wookiee is bad, because he's not always a Wookiee: post #778295 post #130567 post #117741
But Chewbacca implying Star Wars is fine, because Chewbacca's always part of Star Wars.
Wookiee implying Star Wars is fine because Wookiee are always part of Star Wars.

Ya follow?

So Ahri can imply league_of_legends, and Vastayans can imply league of legends, but we should avoid Ahri directly implying Vastaya.

Isn't "Ponification" and "Transformation" essentially the same thing? Why would there be 2 separate tags for that?

Actually no.

Ponification is for when a character has been turned into a pony. There is no indication that they were anything else. It's about making a character into a pony who is recognizable as that original character. It's "Star Wars, but if they were ponies."
post #700522 post #901171 post #143265 post #1042888

Transformation is for the act of transforming: From one species to another. Like a werewolf, or via a magic spell.
post #1388306 post #1389636 post #1369166 post #1356842

Alternative_species, though not mentioned, is for characters who are usually drawn one way being drawn as another species:
post #1337330 post #1399535 post #1394187 post #1368020 post #1026438

These are not mutually exclusive. If I draw Jinx getting hit with a spell that turns her into a pony, it's transformation, ponification, AND alternative species. If I draw Jinx turning into a duck, it's transformation and alternative_species. If I draw Jinx as a lynx, then it's alternative species. If I draw Jinx-the-pony kicking ass and exploding names, then it's just ponification.

You might as well include Furry_Transformation or Scalie_Transformation (im not that creative man but you get the point)

Well, we already do have gender_transformation (where a character gains or loses bits) and inanimate_transformation (where a character becomes a toaster or table) and suit_transformation (where a character puts on a costume that becomes real.)

If you look through the ahri_(lol) images you most likely won't find anything Ahri where she does not have her tail and/or ears.

Weeeellll... Here's a reindeer/fox ahri, a feral fox ahri, anthro cat Ahri (with bonus horse evylyn and cat Nidalee), anthro fox ahri, Rarity-as-ahri, and those were just the ones I found by squinting at the thumbnails.
post #1323900 post #1146463 post #1107752 post #634711 post #428151

Rarity-as-Ahri, is not a Vastayan. :)

The only thing I found was this comic , where, even though it started with, and near the end, had her with no tails / ears, she had them at one point and the comic established that this was Ahri. Ahri is, by the creator, a Nine-Tailed Fox, a Gumiho if you prefer, and has 9 tails and ears.

If she were to have different clothing that would be different, but taking away those features no longer makes her Ahri, she is just a girl with blue hair in an outfit that looks like Ahri, and then that would go under "Cosplay" I suppose (?).

Her'es the thing... (assuming I understand cosplay correctly!!)

Okay. I like Ahri. I want pictures of her. I like pictures of her normally. I like this picture of her dressed up as jinx: post #1079384 I like these pictures of other characters dressed up as her. All of these are cosplay and, I believe, if I draw, say, Tracer from Overwatch dressed up as Ahri, both Tracer and Ahri's names should be tagged.

post #1025110 for example. Jinx here isn't human, but the tiger's cosplaying as Jinx. Or Jinx is a tiger, whatever. Jinx should be tagged, but if Jinx implied human.... it wouldn't apply.

Rayzr said:
Isn't "Ponification" and "Transformation" essentially the same thing? Why would there be 2 separate tags for that?

SnowWolf said:
Actually no.

Ponification is for when a character has been turned into a pony. There is no indication that they were anything else. It's about making a character into a pony who is recognizable as that original character. It's "Star Wars, but if they were ponies."

Well, we already do have gender_transformation (where a character gains or loses bits) and inanimate_transformation (where a character becomes a toaster or table) and suit_transformation (where a character puts on a costume that becomes real.)

This is the only thing that I have any remaining questions on. Why do Ponies have their own specific tag when it comes to something related to transformation? Saying "Ponification" is basically saying that they were turned into a Pony. That should be applied for literally any other type of "final-stage" transformation. Why not do away with that tag and just keep it as "alternative_species"? It doesn't make sense to have a "ponification" tag and not do the same for other species.

Rayzr said:
Why do Ponies have their own specific tag when it comes to something related to transformation?

Rule 85: If it exists, there is a pony of it.

Rayzr said:
This is the only thing that I have any remaining questions on. Why do Ponies have their own specific tag when it comes to something related to transformation? Saying "Ponification" is basically saying that they were turned into a Pony. That should be applied for literally any other type of "final-stage" transformation. Why not do away with that tag and just keep it as "alternative_species"? It doesn't make sense to have a "ponification" tag and not do the same for other species.

*settles down in rocking chair, slowly rocks back and forth*

Well, once upon a time, back when we humans were first allowed to peek into the world of Equestria.... Okay, I'll stop. :)

Basically, when MLP first released, there were a lot of people who LOVED it, and a lot of people who HATED it. Like, burning seething passion. Some people wanted to ban ponies, flat out, no ponies allowed, leave your hooves at the door.

Obviously, ponies are pretty furry-appropriate, so they stayed. (oh GOSH, there were some people who HATED that decision.) ... along with this decision, if I recall correctly, some changes were made to make the blacklist more viable and friendly (once upon a time, if you had 50 pictures on a page, and 40 of them were blacklisted, you only saw 10 posts on that page...)

That said, since the stated stance was "Use the damn blacklist!", efforts were made to ensure that there was no excuse for My Little Pony to not be properly tagged (there are, like, 200+ implications about my little pony.)...

So, seems pretty straight forward, right? When you turn Harry Potter into a pony, just tag my little pony, right? Nope. (or maybe yes, that one I"m not sure about, honestly) But even if you do tag My_Little_pony, there will be people who dislike the pony style. and there's a marked difference between these two pictures:
post #1404869 post #1399290

And on the other hoof, some people specifically SEEK OUT pony-styled stuff. :)

So ponification is used to help filter out the MLP-styled content from the non-mlp styled content. Likewise, to let the pony fans find pony if they want to pony. Just like some pony fans want to see fan characters, while others don't.

It's probably not strictly needed, but makes people happier :)