Implicating human_to_anthro → anthro
Link to implication

Reason:

See the wiki:

Although the human tag usually only applies to full humans, these mid-transformation posts should be tagged as both human and anthro.

Also make the following implications:
Human_to_anthro --> human
Human_to_feral --> human
Human_to_feral --> feral
Feral_to_human --> human
Feral_to_human --> feral
Anthro_on_feral --> anthro
Anthro_on_feral --> feral
Feral_to_anthro --> anthro
Feral_to_anthro --> feral

EDIT: The tag implication human_to_anthro -> anthro (forum #267344) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.

Bumping this with a tentative +1. I'm assuming something like human_to_feral should be tagged both human and feral? Currently, only the wiki page for human mentions that a human in the process of transforming is still tagged human, but I haven't read anything that states a *-to-feral/anthro transformation should be tagged feral/anthro. It would make sense, but I'm not totally sure. In some cases this can be ambiguous, like with:
post #2019733
There's nothing in the picture to say if he's going to end up as feral or anthro, and in either case doesn't quite look feral-esque yet. I'd think the default assumption would be he's becoming feral because that's what Arcanine normally is, and there's no indication he's going to end up different from normal.

Raugh said:
Anthro_on_feral --> anthro
Anthro_on_feral --> feral

I presume you meant anthro_*to*_feral? In either case, I'd also suggest the implications:
anthro_to_feral --> anthro
anthro_to_feral --> feral
anthro_to_human --> anthro
anthro_to_human --> human

-1. Transformation can be in sequences that are in between, in which they wouldn't qualify as anthro or feral in the current context OR it is super ambiguous.

ImpidiDinkaDoo said:
-1. Transformation can be in sequences that are in between, in which they wouldn't qualify as anthro or feral in the current context OR it is super ambiguous.

Would they still qualify as human when in the process of transforming? It seems to me that once it's started, they would be humanoid or animal_humanoid, not human. If that's the case, the wiki would need to be updated. Alternatively, having A_to_B transformation tags imply A and B would make sense since that's the starting and ending state of the transformation process. If there's enough there to justify an A_to_B tag, it's not a big leap to have A and B tags as far as TWYS.

ImpidiDinkaDoo said:
-1. Transformation can be in sequences that are in between, in which they wouldn't qualify as anthro or feral in the current context OR it is super ambiguous.

afaik right now in posts tagged hybrid there is a trend to tag characters with both(or all) of the things that make them up.

• ex: a shark-bear hybrid would be tagged both shark and bear
• or something like this:

post #256430

is there something different about mid_transformation posts where the same principle shouldn't apply? (mostly talking about human_to* and *to_human stuff)

sneezer22 said:
afaik right now in posts tagged hybrid there is a trend to tag characters with both(or all) of the things that make them up.

• ex: a shark-bear hybrid would be tagged both shark and bear

To be clear, that's exactly what the wiki says to do:

Made-up terms such as cabbit, folf, and wolingo are useless and have been aliased away to hybrid. Use the component animals and hybrid tag if you want to tag these, provided the component animals can be discerned from each other in the post.

I don't see why the same shouldn't apply to mid_transformation. If you can discern a character is a human changing into a feral (i.e. warrants the human_to_feral tag), it reasonably follows to tag the "component" forms, human and feral, not a singular specific form they currently appear as. Some in-between forms don't even have a tag to apply, e.g. an anthro changing into furniture or clothing.

In any case, there's currently an inconsistency in the way these kinds of posts are being tagged, with different instructions being given for how they should be tagged. For instance, post #1935047 is tagged human_to_anthro with human and anthro (no humanoid tag), while post #1788631 is tagged human_to_anthro with canine_humanoid (no human or anthro tags). There are multiple posts following each style.

The wiki page for human_to_anthro specifically says these images should be tagged as human and anthro, which is echoed by the wiki page for human saying human-related transformations should still have the human tag, rather than suggesting humanoid. One could assume this should extend to the other A_to_B transformation tags, that they should be tagged as A and B. This also mirrors the way hybrid works. In this case, the former tagging style is correct and these implications should be used.

On the other side, an admin is saying that images that are of an in-between form should not be tagged as anthro or feral if they do not directly appear as such. Consequently, human_to_anthro should imply animal_humanoid, human_to_feral should have either animal_humanoid or anthro depending on their current state of change, etc. In this case, the latter tagging style is correct and a different set of implications can be suggested. Although this leaves cases where there isn't a form to tag.

As someone who has and will likely again post TF art here, it would be nice to know how I should be tagging such images. I can also fix the tags of existing images I run across that have the wrong ones.

Watsit said:
In any case, there's currently an inconsistency in the way these kinds of posts are being tagged, with different instructions being given for how they should be tagged

I've noticed the same discrepancy between what the wiki says and what admins are saying and doing. It's rather confusing, but I take it that someone should edit the wikis to fit what the administration tell us. I don't see anyone tagging with the hybrid rules, only the latter.

Watsit said:
[...] Although this leaves cases where there isn't a form to tag.

I think the admin meant that the in-betweens can be something else than anthro or human, not a lack of a body type to tag?

sneezer22 said:
is there something different about mid_transformation posts where the same principle shouldn't apply? (mostly talking about human_to* and *to_human stuff)

it probably should when tagging human if a mid transformation post overlaps with hybrid
post #2006733 post #2002722

but because of the use of implied_transformation and post_transformation in transformation posts, human_to* and *to_human probably shouldn't be implicated. otherwise these would be tagged human
post #2017743 post #377740

Shadowstones said:
I think the admin meant that the in-betweens can be something else than anthro or human, not a lack of a body type to tag?

My thinking was something along the lines of post #1685912, where the transformation subject is no longer anthro, no indication of being animate (should not have the animate_inanimate tag, IMO), but obviously not a plain old inanimate_object either (otherwise the transformation tags wouldn't be applicable).

sneezer22 said:
but because of the use of implied_transformation and post_transformation in transformation posts, human_to* and *to_human probably shouldn't be implicated. otherwise these would be tagged human
post #2017743 post #377740

Personally, I would say that first example should be tagged human and feral, since there's still human-like structure in the face and torso, and the left flipper isn't fully formed yet, but the rest of their body is more that of a normal "feral" primarina. There seems to be some disagreement on whether primarina normally classifies as feral or anthro. Either way, I would say it should either be tagged human_to_feral with human and feral, or human_to_anthro with human and anthro.

The second example with the wolf-girl I would say shouldn't be tagged human_to_anthro since they're already anthro with no indication of a still on-going transformation. post_transformation would be more appropriate.

The tag implication human_to_anthro -> anthro (forum #267344) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.