Implicating post_transformation → transformation
Link to implication

Reason:

To be able to tag post_transformation, the image needs enough context to determine a transformation had occurred (otherwise TWYS would dictate it not be tagged). Consequently, having an apparent transformation context should warrant the transformation tag, IMO. For the specific case of an in-progress transformation, the mid_transformation tag would be applicable.

I admit I don't quite know how this should work, given mid_transformation seems to be a rather under-utilized tag, but having transformation cover post_transformation makes sense and would be a useful for people that are looking for transformation-related content, including any aftermath.

I would also suggest the implication:

implied_transformation --> transformation

for similar reasons. There needs to be enough context to at least suggest a transformation can be or has occurred, which would generally be of interest to people searching for transformation-related content.

Since Transformation tag and mid transformation tags are basically the same thing, it could be more useful to not make such implications and remove mid_transformation all together instead. But that's just how I feel about this after being quite used to searching "~tf ~post_transformation ~implied_transformation" to cover all cases.

BirdOfGrain said:
Since Transformation tag and mid transformation tags are basically the same thing, it could be more useful to not make such implications and remove mid_transformation all together instead. But that's just how I feel about this after being quite used to searching "~tf ~post_transformation ~implied_transformation" to cover all cases.

The purpose of this would be to help consolidate all transformation-related posts under the transformation tag, as well as avoid gotchas for new or not-so-new users with such an interest (personally I didn't realize there was a post_transformation tag for quite a while, and it was only more recently I discovered implied_transformation was a tag; how many other people are falling for the same?). If the mid_transformation tag could be properly utilized, there would be no loss of functionality either.

If doable, perhaps a quick(?) fix would be to move all current transformation tags to mid_transformation as a one-time change, then implicate

mid_transformation --> transformation
post_transformation --> transformation
implied_transformation --> transformation

The wiki can then be updated to suggest users use one of those more specific tags instead of 'transformation' alone, similar to how sex suggests to use more specific sex-related tags instead of 'sex' alone.

I still don't see why mid_transformation is a thing when transformation is supposed to be that. To me mid_transformation should be aliased away.

If you are looking for all transformation content then simply searching *transformation should cover everything or use "~".

post_transformation → transformation was declined previously by former staff

For standalone post_transformation posts there can be signs of a transformation having taken place through torn_clothing, dialogue labels on chemicals and the like. Though in those cases I think implied_transformation should be used instead. It's a bit of a mess currently.

In any case no transformation is taking place in implied_transformation or post_transformation
so -1

Shadowstones said:
If you are looking for all transformation content then simply searching *transformation should cover everything or use "~".

That's far more broad, though. If I want to search all species_transformation related stuff, i.e. mid+post+implied, then species_transformation *transformation would include every other type of transformation with it (gender_, inanimate_, cock_, etc). "~" only works when you know there's a separate relevant tag, which the post you link to actually lightly touched on:

Well the names for these tags really aren't helping, since it makes it sound super appropriate until you start digging into the definitions of these tags, how they're used and how they relate to each other...and then the idea of implicating them falls apart. The names though, the names make it seem like "wow, why aren't those implicated, I mean they both say transformation in them so that must be an oversight, etc" Not that I can think of any better names for any of these. So I get why it comes up."

Someone sees "transformation" and makes the reasonable assumption that it applies to all transformation-related activity, not just in-progress transformations. But this ends up missing things until they eventually realize the other transformation tags exist and don't implicate transformation (at which point they may suggest it). The reason for not accepting it was because the current definitions don't fit and there weren't better names to utilize. Lately, however, given some people starting to use mid_transformation, there is a name to consider for just in-progress transformations, allowing transformation to act as a catch-all for mid/post/implied transformation content. The definitions can therefore be changed as appropriate.

Shadowstones said:
post_transformation → transformation was declined previously by former staff

Funny enough, it was also given a tentative +1 from former staff as well.

Shadowstones said:
For standalone post_transformation posts there can be signs of a transformation having taken place through torn_clothing, dialogue labels on chemicals and the like. Though in those cases I think implied_transformation should be used instead. It's a bit of a mess currently.

Maybe, but implied_transformation doesn't need to be for just post_transformation. Being able to separate the aftermath of a transformation from an in-progress one, regardless of whether its implied or not, could be useful.

Watsit said:
Someone sees "transformation" and makes the reasonable assumption that it applies to all transformation-related activity, not just in-progress transformations. But this ends up missing things until they eventually realize the other transformation tags exist and don't implicate transformation (at which point they may suggest it). The reason for not accepting it was because the current definitions don't fit and there weren't better names to utilize. Lately, however, given some people starting to use mid_transformation, there is a name to consider for just in-progress transformations, allowing transformation to act as a catch-all for mid/post/implied transformation content. The definitions can therefore be changed as appropriate.

What you are suggesting is a major revamp of how transformation in general is defined and tagged here. I find it an interesting way to have transformation tagged, but I think you underestimate the work needed and the confusion caused when implemented.
I doubt anything will be done unless enough people support this idea.

Shadowstones said:
What you are suggesting is a major revamp of how transformation in general is defined and tagged here.

I can't say I know that much about the technical side, but I don't see it as being much more disruptive than the introduction of the species_transformation or A_to_B transformation tags. The transformation tag would still be valid on these posts, so there's no harm in users tagging it if they don't know better, there would just be the suggestion to use mid_transformation if applicable instead (or implied/post_transformation otherwise). Other than that, it's just adding some sensible implications as normal. The A_to_B tags could even imply mid_transformation, to help fill in posts that should have it.