Background Pony #0589
"[@LightningBolt":](/forums/tagging/topics/ified-tags?post_id=5113354#post_5113354
[bq="LightningBolt"])
> First off,"@[`Ponified@":`](/tags/ponified) the poster child for this whole mess. The tag name is pretty self evident, as is the description, and if you look at some examples of it via tagging, it works for characters from other series, irl humans, objects, and even non-pony characters all turned into ponies, even official cases.
>
> But if you look closely, you can see some non-ponies in this as well, this is because the tag also has a stronger meaning of non-pony thing turned MLP without being explicitly a pony.[/bq]
Ah yes, an entrenched anachronism from the good ol' days when MLP:FiM was about ponies and 1 dragon. (And 1 other dragon, 1 griffon, and I guess some buffalo but I do my best to forget that episode exists.) Alas...
Further comments below.
"
[@LightningBolt":](/forums/tagging/topics/ified-tags?post_id=5113354#post_5113354
[bq="LightningBolt"])
> This isn't exactly resolved by the other *ified tags either, as they all imply"@[`species swap@":`](/tags/sirenified) which while that works fine for non-sirens turned into sirens, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to imply species swap to everything turned from not a siren into a siren, as a design may be created in it's universe to have always been a siren.
> Going with myself for an example as tags on his images inspired me to do this to begin with. Now, this is a siren designed from turning an IRL person into an MLP species, ponified, if you will, just not a pony, Species swap by a textbook definition makes sense as it from IRL human to MLP siren, tho in the universe he was created for, he has always been a siren, so it makes no logical sense to the image to be tagged species swap as he did not swap in the context of the image, he has always been that way.
>
> The question about all this is, should context matter for@`species swap@` and only apply to in-universe changes? Should it be a blanket implication for ALL *ified types, regardless of in-universe or out of it context? Should @`species swap@` be removed as an implication from many of these or added to all of them? Or something else?
[/bq]
"@TheGlitchedWolf":](/forums/tagging/topics/ified-tags?post_id=5113365#post_5113365
[bq="TheGlitchedWolf"])
> For the species swap tag, I think context matters. Especially when part of a bigger story or lore of some kind. If something is made to be a siren, and it's portrayed as a siren, I see no need for species swap tag. This also doesn't hinder search results as the ponified tag takes care of this. While the context makes this not a species swap, it's still ponified so people can search by that tag to find images of other universe characters brought into the MLP universe.[/bq]
I think the spirit of"[species swap":](/tags/species+swap) is a situation depicting a character that has previously been established with an [==MLP:FiM&EQG==] canonical race, or high-percentile-supported fandom original species, and is being depicted in the form of some other race or species. This could be in the form of a transformation sequence, a simple "oops a spell went wrong while setting up the context for what you're about to see" or the end result of a prank, an alternate universe where the swapped state had "always been that way" in its own continuity...
In other words, regardless of how it gets explained, a character with a pre-existing, accepted canon or canon-adjacent race/species gets depicted as a different one.
Note that IRL humans are **not** a canon or canon-adjacent race (and remember that EqG are not humans), and therefore would not count as a "species swap" to imagine something IRL in show-style.
"
[@TheGlitchedWolf":](/forums/tagging/topics/ified-tags?post_id=5113365#post_5113365
[bq="TheGlitchedWolf"])
> Although, on the topic of ponified. I feel like it'd be worth a try to separate the 2 uses of this tag. There's ponified for non-pony characters/things being turned into a pony, and there's ponified for non-mlp characters being brought into mlp. These are obviously not very similar and having them as the same tag just doesn't feel right. ponified could stay as is for non-pony being turn into a pony while non-mlp being turned mlp could have a new tag like mlpified.
>
> That being said, if it's decided that it's not worth trying to separate the 2, there is always the option of doing ponified,pony for non-pony into pony and ponified,-pony for non-mlp to mlp. But there's other issues with that: Users not tagging pony on pictures of ponies + if you do ponified,-pony to find an image of someone mlpified, but not as a pony. you'll miss any images where mlpfied character is in an image with any ponies. Hence why I feel it would be worth trying to separate them.[/bq]
Agreed here (mlpified is what I thought of too but even that leaves me hesitant about dealing with EqGified) but also acknowledging what a clusterf of hard work and user education this split would be.
So, a real human into the poniverse would be tagged "mlpified" and then just what race they are, not "race-ified".
"race-ified", implying "species/race swap", would apply only to situations with a pre-existing MLP-styled characterization being changed into a different species/race.
For "species swap", the target would most often^[citation needed]^ be for another canon/adjacent species/race, but also could be: pony to irl-style human, or parasprite to Xenomorph, or dragon to Terminator; these also ought to count as "species/race swap". It just most meaningful IMO if it **starts** with something MLP-related.
And on the last point, weigh the harm of the implication (to taggers) of having to remove inappropriate "species swap" tags, and harm to viewers finding posts inappropriately tagged with "species swap", vs. removing the implication so taggers have to seek posts and add it, or otherwise just deal with its absence. Which do you think happens more: species swap getting appropriately added via the implication, or mistakenly added via the implication?
[bq="LightningBolt"]
> First off,
>
> But if you look closely, you can see some non-ponies in this as well, this is because the tag also has a stronger meaning of non-pony thing turned MLP without being explicitly a pony.
Ah yes, an entrenched anachronism from the good ol' days when MLP:FiM was about ponies and 1 dragon. (And 1 other dragon, 1 griffon, and I guess some buffalo but I do my best to forget that episode exists.) Alas...
Further comments below.
"
[@LightningBolt
[bq="LightningBolt"]
> This isn't exactly resolved by the other *ified tags either, as they all imply
> Going with myself for an example as tags on his images inspired me to do this to begin with. Now, this is a siren designed from turning an IRL person into an MLP species, ponified, if you will, just not a pony, Species swap by a textbook definition makes sense as it from IRL human to MLP siren, tho in the universe he was created for, he has always been a siren, so it makes no logical sense to the image to be tagged species swap as he did not swap in the context of the image, he has always been that way.
>
> The question about all this is, should context matter for
[
"
[bq="TheGlitchedWolf"]
> For the species swap tag, I think context matters. Especially when part of a bigger story or lore of some kind. If something is made to be a siren, and it's portrayed as a siren, I see no need for species swap tag. This also doesn't hinder search results as the ponified tag takes care of this. While the context makes this not a species swap, it's still ponified so people can search by that tag to find images of other universe characters brought into the MLP universe.
I think the spirit of
In other words, regardless of how it gets explained, a character with a pre-existing, accepted canon or canon-adjacent race/species gets depicted as a different one.
Note that IRL humans are **not** a canon or canon-adjacent race (and remember that EqG are not humans), and therefore would not count as a "species swap" to imagine something IRL in show-style.
"
[@TheGlitchedWolf
[bq="TheGlitchedWolf"]
> Although, on the topic of ponified. I feel like it'd be worth a try to separate the 2 uses of this tag. There's ponified for non-pony characters/things being turned into a pony, and there's ponified for non-mlp characters being brought into mlp. These are obviously not very similar and having them as the same tag just doesn't feel right. ponified could stay as is for non-pony being turn into a pony while non-mlp being turned mlp could have a new tag like mlpified.
>
> That being said, if it's decided that it's not worth trying to separate the 2, there is always the option of doing ponified,pony for non-pony into pony and ponified,-pony for non-mlp to mlp. But there's other issues with that: Users not tagging pony on pictures of ponies + if you do ponified,-pony to find an image of someone mlpified, but not as a pony. you'll miss any images where mlpfied character is in an image with any ponies. Hence why I feel it would be worth trying to separate them.
Agreed here (mlpified is what I thought of too but even that leaves me hesitant about dealing with EqGified) but also acknowledging what a clusterf of hard work and user education this split would be.
So, a real human into the poniverse would be tagged "mlpified" and then just what race they are, not "race-ified".
"race-ified", implying "species/race swap", would apply only to situations with a pre-existing MLP-styled characterization being changed into a different species/race.
For "species swap", the target would most often^[citation needed]^ be for another canon/adjacent species/race, but also could be: pony to irl-style human, or parasprite to Xenomorph, or dragon to Terminator; these also ought to count as "species/race swap". It just most meaningful IMO if it **starts** with something MLP-related.
And on the last point, weigh the harm of the implication (to taggers) of having to remove inappropriate "species swap" tags, and harm to viewers finding posts inappropriately tagged with "species swap", vs. removing the implication so taggers have to seek posts and add it, or otherwise just deal with its absence. Which do you think happens more: species swap getting appropriately added via the implication, or mistakenly added via the implication?