A diapercritter is a creature or living suit made out of the same material as diapers. Diaper transformation is the act of turning someone into a wearable diaper. I'm not sure why these were joined, as plenty of folks I know have preferences for one or the other. The implication should be dissolved and 'diaper_creature' should be removed from art featuring diaper_transformation. If diaper_creature is necessary for filtering (even though diaper_transformation should already suffice), then please bring back diapercritter for posts specifically featuring diapercritters.
Topic: Dissolve Implication/Alias - diaper_transformation -> diaper_creature
Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions
This is not the proper way for submitting an unimply/unalias request.
You will need to submit a Bulk Update Request (BUR) and have diaper_transformation unimply diaper_creature, i.e., put unimply diaper_transformation -> diaper_creature into the "Script" section.
You will need to include this forum topic's ID - 62300 - into the BUR as well so that everything stays in one place.
As for why they were implied together, I can't tell for sure since implication #28740 now lists a hidden forum post.
thegreatwolfgang said:
As for why they were implied together, I can't tell for sure since implication #28740 now lists a hidden forum post.
I unhid it and then locked it, because that's a far better way to archive an old AIRBUR suggestions thread. It's far better to be able to see it and reference the history and receipts if needed for these kinds of things.
As for the OP concerns:
What we have right now is a site implication, where adding the diaper_transformation tag then also adds the diaper_creature tag as well to the same image.
Which actually seems like it fits pretty well. Let's step through how it works at the moment:
If someone is transformed into a diaper, then they are now a creature or living suit made out of the same material as diapers. You can't have a diaper transformation without a creature who is now at least part diaper material. So that far, this implication seems to work with that by adding diaper_creature too. Because it has both.
And then you can still have a diaper creature without any transformation, and tag it only diaper_creature. So that works too, and it lets us tag any other types of diaper creature situations too.
If someone only wants non-transformation versions of diaper_creature, then they can also add -diaper_transformation or even -transformation to their searches to exclude transformation types of diaper_creatures.
I'm not sure I see which part is breaking though. This seems to already fit what you requested for it to do. Can you give examples of where it seems to cause a problem?
furrypickle said:
As for the OP concerns:What we have right now is a site implication, where adding the diaper_transformation tag then also adds the diaper_creature tag as well to the same image.
Which actually seems like it fits pretty well. Let's step through how it works at the moment:
If someone is transformed into a diaper, then they are now a creature or living suit made out of the same material as diapers. You can't have a diaper transformation without a creature who is now at least part diaper material. So that far, this implication seems to work with that by adding diaper_creature too. Because it has both.
And then you can still have a diaper creature without any transformation, and tag it only diaper_creature. So that works too, and it lets us tag any other types of diaper creature situations too.
If someone only wants non-transformation versions of diaper_creature, then they can also add -diaper_transformation or even -transformation to their searches to exclude transformation types of diaper_creatures.
I'm not sure I see which part is breaking though. This seems to already fit what you requested for it to do. Can you give examples of where it seems to cause a problem?
Couldn’t someone turn into a non sentient diaper though?
(Man that is a brand new sentence huh)
furrypickle said:
As for the OP concerns:What we have right now is a site implication, where adding the diaper_transformation tag then also adds the diaper_creature tag as well to the same image.
Which actually seems like it fits pretty well. Let's step through how it works at the moment:
If someone is transformed into a diaper, then they are now a creature or living suit made out of the same material as diapers. You can't have a diaper transformation without a creature who is now at least part diaper material. So that far, this implication seems to work with that by adding diaper_creature too. Because it has both.
And then you can still have a diaper creature without any transformation, and tag it only diaper_creature. So that works too, and it lets us tag any other types of diaper creature situations too.
If someone only wants non-transformation versions of diaper_creature, then they can also add -diaper_transformation or even -transformation to their searches to exclude transformation types of diaper_creatures.
I'm not sure I see which part is breaking though. This seems to already fit what you requested for it to do. Can you give examples of where it seems to cause a problem?
In every AB/DL community space I've been in, diaper_transformation (often just referred to as "pamp tf") has referred to things like post #6213348 and post #5934491 where the diaper takes on the properties and appearance of a character (or features an image of a character's face on the print) and is often used exactly like a diaper: worn, used, discarded. I've not heard someone refer to transforming into a diapercritter as 'diaper_transformation', usually it's "diapercritter tf" or some form of encasement/entrapment/suit tf (if it's the living suit type).
A diapercritter is something like post #6092345 or post #6060099 where the entire character is made out of the material, but it doesn't always imply transformation/entrapment.
The distinction I've always seen is:
diaper_transformation -> character is only a diaper, meant to be used like a diaper
diapercritter -> character is a creature made out of diaper-like material, sometimes meant to be used as a suit/diaper
If diaper_creature stands as the parent tag, could we maybe break the alias for diapercritter->diaper_creature and have diapercritter art tagged with that, and maybe diaper_transformation could get a tag like living_diaper to differentiate.
A bit of a boxers/briefs situation. They're both underwear, but they each get their own tags.
manitka said:
Couldn’t someone turn into a non sentient diaper though?(Man that is a brand new sentence huh)
This is also correct, a person could transform into a non-sentient diaper, which would mean diaper_creature and aninmate_inanimate would be incorrect tags.
dfi23 said:
I've not heard someone refer to transforming into a diapercritter as 'diaper_transformation', usually it's "diapercritter tf" or some form of encasement/entrapment/suit tf (if it's the living suit type).
This is why I don't like the foot_transformation, anthro_transformation, etc, tags. They're too easy to confuse between "character transforming into <thing>" (as in anthro_transformation, a non-anthro changing into an anthro) and "<thing> transforming into a different <thing>" (as in foot_transformation, a digitigrade foot changing into an plantigrade foot or vice versa for example; though even that tag has some uses of the other meaning).
The bulk update request #13380 is pending approval.
remove alias diapercritter (0) -> diaper_creature (483)
remove alias diaper_critter (0) -> diaper_creature (483)
remove alias living_diaper (0) -> diaper_creature (483)
remove implication diaper_transformation (215) -> diaper_creature (483)
create implication diaper_transformation (215) -> transformation (98663)
Reason: Apologies if I didn't do this correctly, this is my first time.
In AB/DL and Babyfur spaces, the term diaper_transformation is used to describe a situation in which a character is transformed into a diaper, to be worn or used as a typical absorbent undergarment. The images don't always feature active transformation, and are usually shown as post-transformation. While it is most common for the transformed character to still retain some level of sentience, it's not a hard rule and transformed characters may be a non-sentient diaper.
Posts like post #6213348 and post #6213146 show the common ends of the spectrum of diaper_transformation, ranging from a sticker-like face printed on the diaper, to a more detailed face that implies the undergarment has real eyes and a mouth.
Diapercritter, on the other hand, refers to a creature that is made of a diaper-like material, not just an undergarment. While they may be a form of living suit, they may also be their own entities/characters that are not the result of transformation and/or not meant to be worn or used by other characters like a diaper.
Posts like post #6060099 and post #5874383 and post #5876273 demonstrate these concepts. On the latter post, it's evident that the diapercritter is a result of encasement. However, in the former posts, it's shown that the diapercritter characters are wearing their own diapers and using them. Transforming into a diapercritter doesn't imply diaper_transformation, since the end result is different.
Therefore, I propose that we break up these tags again.
diaper_transformation should not imply diaper_creature or animate_inanimate, as it's not guaranteed that the final transformation results in a sentient diaper.
diapercritter, diaper_critter, and living_diaper should not alias diaper_creature
diapercritter should retain its own tag, with diaper_critter aliasing it, to describe a non-undergarment creature made out of a diaper-like material.
living_diaper should be its own tag, to describe a character transformed specifically into a diaper undergarment meant to be worn.
Theoretically, diaper_creature could be kept as a tag that implicates both diapercritter and living_diaper if there's a reason to have a common ancestor tag for the two.