The tag implication #38736 centaur -> split_form has been rejected.

Reason: Unlike most other taurs, a centaur is specifically "the body of a horse, but the upper body of a human growing out where the horse's neck and head should be."
Thus, all centaurs must necessarily have a split form. Centaur already implies humanoid_taur as well.
"Anthro" upper bodies should instead be tagged as equine_taurs, so there's no conflict there.

EDIT: The tag implication centaur -> split_form (forum #309844) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.

Wouldn't anthro upper bodies still be split form?

tittybitty said:
Wouldn't anthro upper bodies still be split form?

That has no bearing on centaur though. Centaur is very specifically human upper half + feral horse lower half. Split_form for some reason only applies to having two different species, not actual forms, therefore there's not really a way to automatically implicate it on taurs with anthro upper halves.

Although thinking about it, I feel like humanoid_taur might be the better place to implicate split_form, like how lamia already does, unless there's counter-examples I'm just not aware of.

vulkalu said:
Split_form for some reason only applies to having two different species, not actual forms.

I would be in favor of changing that wiki. It would be more useful, more clear, and still cover mostly the same things.

tittybitty said:
I would be in favor of changing that wiki. It would be more useful, more clear, and still cover mostly the same things.

I agree that split_form should apply to a character being of two different forms rather than species. However, someone would have to first go through the tag and handle posts that have characters with different species and the same form (e.g. a half-fox, half-goat, and all anthro character would currently apply, but wouldn't apply to that new definition). There might also need to be a new tag/definition for characters who are 'split species' if something more specific than hybrid is desired.

watsit said:
I agree that split_form should apply to a character being of two different forms rather than species. However, someone would have to first go through the tag and handle posts that have characters with different species and the same form (e.g. a half-fox, half-goat, and all anthro character would currently apply, but wouldn't apply to that new definition). There might also need to be a new tag/definition for characters who are 'split species' if something more specific than hybrid is desired.

That's what I would vote for. Probably most efficient would be to mass update split_form -> split_species, then pick out the things from that that actually fall under split_form as well.

Still not sure how to feel about this specific implication request though. If split_form isn't changed, then would humanoid_taur be viable for the implication, even if the upper half happens to be an equine humanoid? I would say yes, but I'm not sure how the site would rule that. If split_form is changed, then this implication would be better off going to taur itself, I would think.

The tag implication centaur -> split_form (forum #309844) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.