imply creature_and_personification -> personification

BUR #12367 has been rejected.

create implication creature_and_personification -> personification

We make an exception to not tag personification on franchises that are entirely centered around personifications (such as Kemono Friends or Umamusume) to avoid flooding the tag, however creature and personification is made up of pictures where both the personification and the original animal/creature are present, so imo we should make an exception to the exception, because the act of personification is self-evident in these pictures. It's reasonable to expect these pictures when searching personification.

There's a case to be made for when it's actually humanizations instead of personifications, but there's no results so far in creature_and_personification humanization. There are some under humanization dual_persona, but they haven't been tagged with this tag, and we've discussed implicating humanization to personification before because of how close and often mistaken these two tags are, so I don't think it should be a stopper for this implication.

nonamethanks said:

There's a case to be made for when it's actually humanizations instead of personifications, but there's no results so far in creature_and_personification humanization.

There are now, post #5388927 is a great example.

nonamethanks said:

[...] and we've discussed implicating humanization to personification before because of how close and often mistaken these two tags are, so I don't think it should be a stopper for this implication.

It's not a good idea to implicate them because it'll be otherwise hard to search for humanizations under a copyright whose personifications aren't fully humanizations. Or humanizations that shouldn't be tagged peronification, such as simply removing doll joints.

magcolo said:

There are now, post #5388927 is a great example.

That is absolutely a personification and not a humanization, I changed it accordingly. The other are a better fit since they're furries rather than non-anthropomorphic animals.

No, my little pony official personifications have colored skin, these should be tagged separately. post #1948283 and post #2353540 would be personifications and post #4732619 is a humanization.

SSJG said:

The other are a better fit since they're furries rather than non-anthropomorphic animals.

Now looking at them post #2933806 and post #3149438 should probably be personifications, they still have animal ears, and their creature counterparts aren't exactly furries.

magcolo said:

No, my little pony official personifications have colored skin, these should be tagged separately. post #1948283 and post #2353540 would be personifications and post #4732619 is a humanization.

That's not how humanization works. All three post #1948283, post #2353540 and post #4732619 are personifications, because the original form isn't humanoid. Humanization should be used when a humanoid (e.g. furry) is depicted as human.

Without any meta knowledge on the copyright they don't look much different from stuff like monster high, and "impossible skin colors" is one of the elements listed on the wiki. They are a "more human" version of the official personifications.

magcolo said:

Without any meta knowledge on the copyright they don't look much different from stuff like monster high, and "impossible skin colors" is one of the elements listed on the wiki. They are a "more human" version of the official personifications.

No, the result is irrelevant, what matters the most here is the original form. If an animal becomes humanoid (e.g. people with unusual skin color), it's personification. If an animal becomes human, it's personification as well. It will only be humanization if it's humanoid > human.

mongirlfan said:

[...] If an animal becomes human, it's personification as well. It will only be humanization if it's humanoid > human.

"Human" with colored skin -> human with regular skin would match this logic. The colored skin personifications are official too, it wouldn't make sense to assume that the pony version is necessarily the "original form". For me it's like they just took the official personification and removed the colored skin.

magcolo said:

"Human" with colored skin -> human with regular skin would match this logic. The colored skin personifications are official too, it wouldn't make sense to assume that the pony version is necessarily the "original form". For me it's like they just took the official personification and removed the colored skin.

I don't know much about MLP but I assume the characters are originally pony (hence the series name). The official personifications would still be personifications of the pony form. Human versions are expected to be personifications of the original pony form as well.
Unless the characters are originally humanoid and the pony form is actually an animalization of the humanoid form.

magcolo said:

The colored skin personifications are official too, it wouldn't make sense to assume that the pony version is necessarily the "original form".

What?? It makes perfect sense to assume that the form originally introduced is the original form. They were definitely ponies before anything else. What matters here is point A to point B in the context of the individual post. post #5388927 features the character's original pony form, and a personification of the character. It doesn't matter if there's an official personification with colored skin, that isn't being depicted here. If the official personification were also depicted, then there could be a debate on if the "normal" skin color is a humanization of the personification or a personification of the pony.

Well then we have two different types of personification dumped under the same tag, what if you just want to see completely humans? we should be able to filter them separately. -colored skin wouldn’t work because they’re not tagged probably and you have post #5556270, post #2483316, post #4669899.

magcolo said:

Well then we have two different types of personification dumped under the same tag, what if you just want to see completely humans? we should be able to filter them separately. -colored skin wouldn’t work because they’re not tagged probably and you have post #5556270, post #2483316, post #4669899.

Again, all of your examples are personifications. I feel like you're still not getting what personification and humanization are intended for. What you're suggesting is something like, a subtag of the personification tag when the character is not just depicted as humanoid (e.g. colored skin, animal ears, horns), but completely human, which is a whole different matter from this forum thread. If you believe that personification should be reworked like that, feel free to start another topic about it.

mongirlfan said:

Again, all of your examples are personifications. I feel like you're still not getting what personification and humanization are intended for.

And that’s exactly what I said. I put them there because they are personifications, that are obviously not human-like. Weird to assume that I would put girls with horns as examples of humans when I was trying really hard to separate them previously. What I meant is that for copyrights like my little pony where the official personification isn’t "human" enough, so you get fanarts drawing personification differently, it’s worth making a distinction between the humanoid ones and the human ones, there’s no better way to search for them.

magcolo said:

What I meant is that for copyrights like my little pony where the official personification isn’t "human" enough, so you get fanarts drawing personification differently, it’s worth making a distinction between the humanoid ones and the human ones, there’s no better way to search for them.

But that tag is not humanization, because it's already being used for something else.

We can make a new tag, but others don't seem to be interested, and how would it be named?

This bulk update request is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

magcolo said:

how would it be named?

hmm, thinking about it after a while, maybe partial personification and complete personification?

The tags personification_(humanoid) & personification_(human) might be a bit more clear, if a bit clunky.

We could instead make a humanoid tag for all humanoid characters which could be used/excluded in a personification search, although a tag like that might be too broad and would require a lot of initial work.

This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 45 days.

The bulk update request #12367 (forum #221647) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.