Topic: [REJECTED] Tag implication: taur -> split_form

The tag implication #71333 taur -> split_form has been rejected.

Reason: A taur is a kind of being with a split form.
I personally can not find an instance where this isn't true, as if it was true it might look like a...

A horse-taur with a horse lower-half, a horse upper-half, and 6 horse legs, the front 2 of which almost never touch the ground and pretend to be arms???
So basically, not a taur, just a weird version of the normal animal, which someone sewed more legs onto their neck... that's minor body-horror and not a taur. Even moreso body horror if the frontmost 2 are humanoid arms.

I'm not sure really, are these split_form or are some of them not taurs?
post #6201121 post #6211325 post #68269
post #6206158 post #68263 post #69618

Might post this as a tag project instead: taur -split_form it may be instance by instance.

EDIT: The tag implication taur -> split_form (forum #481892) has been rejected by @Peskeon.

Character types such as lamia, merfolk, and (most of) taur, whose bodies consist of clearly distinct halves of two different species. The split should be close to 50/50.

Unless this wiki for split_form is incorrect or outdated, same-species taurs [horse/horse taur etc] should not qualify for split_form and therefore split_form isn't always going to be applicable for taurs.

I have often considered repurposing split form for exactly this, and using it as an umbrella term for taurs, draconcopodes, merfolk, and other half-and-half forms like that… and just moving the current usage to split species instead.

But, that said, this implication as it stands is not valid and moving the current definition to a new tag would have to be done before implementing this. Also probably needs to be discussed anyway, since that’s a big change.

The tag implication taur -> split_form (forum #481892) has been rejected by @Peskeon.