The tag implication #44299 foot_transformation -> transformation has been rejected.

Reason: A foot transformation is, by any definition, a transformation.

Currently not functional tag. Probably best to alias.

EDIT: The tag implication foot_transformation -> transformation (forum #336031) has been rejected by @spe.

pagefluffa said:
The tag implication #44299 foot_transformation -> transformation has been rejected.

Reason: A foot transformation is, by any definition, a transformation.

What is a foot transformation anyway? If it would fit with the rest of the terminology of the site a foot transformation would be someone transforming into a foot, just like cock_transformation, pussy_transformation and how breast_transformation is being used.

Going solely by the usage of this tag, I would've said to alias it away, since it seems to be applied to any transformation posts that happen to show the foot or feet transforming, with or without an actual focus on the foot. Yet, there is at least one post that actually fits how the other tags, like cock_transformation, are used. So technically, this should be valid, but... not with how it's being used currently.

Edit: On another note, for future reference, if you have multiple related implication / alias requests, you could make a BUR instead.

vulkalu said:
Going solely by the usage of this tag, I would've said to alias it away, since it seems to be applied to any transformation posts that happen to show the foot or feet transforming, with or without an actual focus on the foot. Yet, there is at least one post that actually fits how the other tags, like cock_transformation, are used. So technically, this should be valid, but... not with how it's being used currently.

Edit: On another note, for future reference, if you have multiple related implication / alias requests, you could make a BUR instead.

I know about BUR. Didn't use it because I only had two for foot_transformation. I did a BUR recently, but debate is going very slowly, and not a lot of people are offering their input. If you want to try and help things along, it would be greatly appreciated: https://e621.net/forum_topics/33871

pagefluffa said:
I know about BUR. Didn't use it because I only had two for foot_transformation.

Apologies, I've been away from the site for a bit and haven't been looking at who has made what BURs. Still, I'd argue two is enough for a BUR since they're so closely related.

Regardless, doesn't change my viewpoint on this specific tag. The usage of it doesn't fit the name, based on how similar tags are used. Either it needs to be aliased away, or the tag needs to be closer maintained to what the name would suggest it is. I'd argue only the one post fits under this tag (assuming there's not more like it floating about untagged somewhere), and if the intention was for the handful of posts that focus a bit more on the feet, then there's a lot of transformation pictures that would be missing that, and... even then, you could probably get about the same type of results searching transformation + foot_focus, or foot_shot, if they were tagged appropriately.

vulkalu said:
Apologies, I've been away from the site for a bit and haven't been looking at who has made what BURs. Still, I'd argue two is enough for a BUR since they're so closely related.

Regardless, doesn't change my viewpoint on this specific tag. The usage of it doesn't fit the name, based on how similar tags are used. Either it needs to be aliased away, or the tag needs to be closer maintained to what the name would suggest it is. I'd argue only the one post fits under this tag (assuming there's not more like it floating about untagged somewhere), and if the intention was for the handful of posts that focus a bit more on the feet, then there's a lot of transformation pictures that would be missing that, and... even then, you could probably get about the same type of results searching transformation + foot_focus, or foot_shot, if they were tagged appropriately.

Yes, I understood your point the first time. I'm sorry if I sounded combative.

The tag implication foot_transformation -> transformation (forum #336031) has been rejected by @spe.