The tag implication #52015 stella_(gvh_beta) -> snoot_game has been rejected.

Reason: This tag needs to imply both goodbye_volcano_high and snoot_game because although Snoot Game's Stella comes from Goodbye Volcano High, specifically from its conceptual phase of development with the leaked concept art, the two Stellas differ signifcantly from each other, both in design and characterisation. This would make tagging easier because stella_(gvh) would only pull in the goodbye_volcano_high tag, while stella_(snoot_game) would pull in both goodbye_volcano_high and snoot_game for easier and faster tagging that also respects the origins of the two versions of the character in existence.

EDIT: The tag implication stella_(snoot_game) -> snoot_game (forum #378824) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

The implementation of the stella_(snoot_game) tag alongside the stella_(gvh) tag was ultimately pointless. It would have been best to keep the character's likeness tied to the stella_(gvh) and applying additional tags to indicate the alternate designs.

There is conceptual art of the character on E621:
post #3719161 The image had the design for which the stella_(snoot_game) tag had been intended. However, the image was created by KO_OP, the designer of the character and the game for which they had been created, Goodbye Volcano High. The tag had been changed a number of times; from stella_(gvh), originally, to stella_(snoot_game) then back to the GVH tag. It appeared that the extrinsic values of the image, in the end, had played a role on what tag would be used. Based on what the viewer could see, regardless of the source of the image, the slender body type, different shirt, different face, all aligned with the design for which the stella_(snoot_game) was created.

Alternatively, post #4080129 , post #4317960 , post #3721190, post #4198779 , these images saw the use of both thags due to the ambiguous kernel of inspiration for the character designs. Two character tags and two copyright tags were used for one character.

It had been brought into question how these tags would be affected if the basic attributes of the character would be affected.
In topic #40679 , the question was brought up regarding which tag would be favored in cases of "alternate costume, form, species, or sex", which had been intended to suppose extreme cases where the design would not implicate one or the other.

It had then been stated that there were a myriad of modifying tags that would suit such situations:

theaestheticfur said:
As for the alternate costumes, for the crossovers, one can use the IP’s tag, the crossover tag and the crossover_costume tags together. [...] The alternate species problem has also already been solved with the alternate_species and humanized tags. [...] There are also tons of subtags of the crossgender tag, too, for Rule 63 drawings of Stella. The most relevant ones are ftm_crossgender and fti_crossgender in this case.

Therefore, in cases where a user put the stella_(snoot_game) tag, the use of stella_(gvh) with the addition of tags such as alternate_body_type, alternate_hairstyle, alternate_costume, snoot_game was just as applicable. The character "Stella" was attributed as a design created and intended for Goodbye Volcano High in the original character tag and the instances of the design present in Snoot Game were simply appended with the modifying tags that implicated the alternate/conceptual design as opposed to distinguishing the design with a completely separate and unnecessary tag.

philosophicalmind said:
The implementation of the stella_(snoot_game) tag alongside the stella_(gvh) tag was ultimately pointless. It would have been best to keep the character's likeness tied to the stella_(gvh) and applying additional tags to indicate the alternate designs.

There is conceptual art of the character on E621:
post #3719161 The image had the design for which the stella_(snoot_game) tag had been intended. However, the image was created by KO_OP, the designer of the character and the game for which they had been created, Goodbye Volcano High. The tag had been changed a number of times; from stella_(gvh), originally, to stella_(snoot_game) then back to the GVH tag. It appeared that the extrinsic values of the image, in the end, had played a role on what tag would be used. Based on what the viewer could see, regardless of the source of the image, the slender body type, different shirt, different face, all aligned with the design for which the stella_(snoot_game) was created.

Alternatively, post #4080129 , post #4317960 , post #3721190, post #4198779 , these images saw the use of both thags due to the ambiguous kernel of inspiration for the character designs. Two character tags and two copyright tags were used for one character.

It had been brought into question how these tags would be affected if the basic attributes of the character would be affected.
In topic #40679 , the question was brought up regarding which tag would be favored in cases of "alternate costume, form, species, or sex", which had been intended to suppose extreme cases where the design would not implicate one or the other.

It had then been stated that there were a myriad of modifying tags that would suit such situations:
Therefore, in cases where a user put the stella_(snoot_game) tag, the use of stella_(gvh) with the addition of tags such as alternate_body_type, alternate_hairstyle, alternate_costume, snoot_game was just as applicable. The character "Stella" was attributed as a design created and intended for Goodbye Volcano High in the original character tag and the instances of the design present in Snoot Game were simply appended with the modifying tags that implicated the alternate/conceptual design as opposed to distinguishing the design with a completely separate and unnecessary tag.

I won’t revert to the one-tag-fits-all-Stellas layout because the differing character designs warrant that distinction.

However, you point out the valid exception where this design can be tagged with stella_(gvh) instead; the art comes from KO_OP themselves; in this case, one can use both the stella_(gvh) and official_art tag.

For mixed or undecidable depictions, one shall then use both the Snoot Game and GVH version of the tag, as pointed out with the mixed design in one drawing.

For the crossovers, I would like to also point out the general shape and artistic DNA of the design that is put into crossover cosplay or full-on crossovers. If the design shows a canary yellow skin, lighter green hair and chubbier and sharper physique and face, then use stella_(gvh), crossover and the other IP’s tag the character crosses over with. If it’s the thinner Snoot Game design with the light green skin, dark green hair and angular shape, then use stella_(snoot_game) instead with the crossover tag and the other featured IP’s tag.

But back to the topic of this thread. When someone decided on which tag should be used based on these rules of thumb, then in my humble opinion, both stella_(gvh) and stella_(snoot_game) should pull in goodbye_volcano_high because of that shared past with the concept art. But because of the differing characterisations in both games, boiling down to the design and personality differences, stella_(snoot_game) is ought to pull in snoot_game, too, alongside goodbye_volcano_high. This way, if someone only types in stella_(snoot_game), the website would be able to tag the copyright correctly because both copyright tags would be pulled in. This convenience is why I opened this implication request.

EDIT: On the official concept art, the mods can lock in stella_(gvh) and forbid the usage of stella_(snoot_game) and the problem is solved.

theaestheticfur said:
[...] this design can be tagged with stella_(gvh) instead; the art that comes from KO_OP themselves; in this case one can use both the stella_(gvh) tag and official_art tag. [...] On the official concept art, the mods can lock in stella_(gvh) and forbit the usage of stella_(snoot_game) and the problem is solved.

This point is conceded. The limited number of preliminary arts by KO_OP makes this feasible. However:

theaestheticfur said:
[...] the thinner Snoot Game design with the light green skin, dark green hair, and angular shape [...]

While this may be a non-issue, it bears reiterating on the basis of principle that as an exception, it will also exist contrary to the site's tagging rule of "Tag What You See".

theaestheticfur said:
For mixed or undecided depictions, one shall then use both the Snoot Game and GVH version of the tage, as pointed out with the mixed design in one drawing.

This point is conceded and plays into the following:

theaestheticfur said:
[...] then in my humble opinion, both stella_(gvh) and stella_(snoot_game) should pull in goodbye_volcano_high because of that shared past with the concept art. [...] stella_(snoot_game) is ought to pull in snoot_game, too, alongside goodbye_volcano_high. [...] This convenience is why I opened this implication request.

This point is conceded; for convenience and simplicity, it is best that stella_(gvh) remains separate from the original concept, barring any images produced specifically by KO_OP while stella_(snoot_game) should carry all necessary implications.

implication #52035 stella_(snoot_game) -> goodbye_volcano_high

As per the earlier statement, this implication should go hand in hand with #52015

Edit: retracted additional tag implication request.

philosophicalmind said:
It would have been best to keep the character's likeness tied to the stella_(gvh) and applying additional tags to indicate the alternate designs.

This isn't how different character designs are handled. If one implicates the other, you can't search for posts that have both designs, and you can't search for posts with the stella_(gvh) design without excluding posts that have both.

watsit said:
This isn't how different character designs are handled. If one implicates the other, you can't search for posts that have both designs, and you can't search for posts with the stella_(gvh) design without excluding posts that have both.

That is fair.

philosophicalmind said:
That is fair.

At least they were able to put what I think into better words, without needing tons of paragraphs.

So… Now with everything being clear, what do you think?

theaestheticfur said:
At least they were able to put what I think into better words, without needing tons of paragraphs.

So… Now with everything being clear, what do you think?

It is what it is.

philosophicalmind said:
It is what it is.

What does that mean for this implication suggestion?

strikerman said:
What does that mean for this implication suggestion?

The tag has the IP name in it.

philosophicalmind said:
The tag has the IP name in it.

I think we reached a good compromise. The tag has the IP name in it and the tags are at least still kept seperate.

Thank you, I believe we can close this thread now and reject the implication.

The tag implication stella_(snoot_game) -> snoot_game (forum #378824) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.