The tag implication #51520 werehorse -> horse has been rejected.

Reason: .....

EDIT: The tag implication werehorse -> horse (forum #374118) has been rejected by @slyroon.

Don't leave the reason field blank, even if you think it's obvious. Because in this case, if you look beyond the names, it seems that this should not be an implication.

The current trend with were and their implications seems to be that the were counterparts of the family/subfamily imply the family/subfamily, like werecanid implies canid, werecanine implying canine, werefelid implying felid, werefeline implying feline, wereequine implying equine, wereeulipotyphlan implying eulipotyphlan and so on.

However were counterparts of genus and species don't imply their non-were counterparts. werecat doesn't imply cat, werewolf doesn't imply wolf, werecanis doesn't imply canis, werehog doesn't imply hog and so on.

So unless we want to change all that, werehorse shouldn't imply horse.

I believe this system is because we want to separate species and species_humanoid. So for example, a werewolf can transform into a wolf or a wolf humanoid, but wolf humanoid* doesn't (and shouldn't) imply wolf

*Or werewolf in mid transformation state which can't be tagged wolf but can be tagged wolf humanoid

tokwas said:
The tag implication #51520 werehorse -> horse has been rejected.

Reason: .....

The were tags as described by the wiki: "Someone who can transform into another being, with the most traditional example being a werewolf."
werehorses are distinct from horses in the same way that werewolves distinct wolves.

Also see topic #38660, topic #20051
and others.

The tag implication werehorse -> horse (forum #374118) has been rejected by @slyroon.