A tag for Transformation_(lore) may be good for the usage of after_transformation, imminent_transformation, and possibly even mid_transformation.

I suggest either have a Transformation_(lore) tag that is implied by the others, although there may be better ways

catt0s_0fthenight said:
I suggest either have a Transformation_(lore) tag that is implied by the others, although there may be better ways

There's already the implied_transformation tag.

monsterbomb10010 said:
There's already the implied_transformation tag.

Given the history of implied_* tags, I wouldn't hold out hope for that to stick around.

A lore tag would also be useful for finally being able to blacklist page 1 of a 4-5 page transformation sequence.

wat8548 said:
A lore tag would also be useful for finally being able to blacklist page 1 of a 4-5 page transformation sequence.

Lore tags still only apply to what's actually in the image, they just don't follow TWYS. If the transformation hasn't started yet and there's no sign of a transformation, you wouldn't tag it transformation_(lore). Just as you don't tag male_(lore) if a multi-post sequence will show a male eventually; you only use the tag if one of the characters shown is male but can't be tagged as such by TWYS.

The lack of such tags on page one of a multi-page sequence is more a consequence of the lack of pool tags. Lore tags aren't for impending_x tags, they aren't meant to fill in for the lack of pool tags, otherwise you could make the same argument for any tag. A gay comic where the first pages don't show two males getting frisky? male/male_(lore). A comic where the first pages don't show feral characters? feral_(lore). It would get ridiculous, as well as confusing since the lore tags are supposed to relate to the specific image, resulting in lore tags that sometimes do and sometimes don't apply to the given image.

watsit said:
A gay comic where the first pages don't show two males getting frisky? male/male_(lore).

There was a discussion about that just recently, actually. People already tag solo males with lore about their sexuality, why not give them a valid way to do it?

wat8548 said:
There was a discussion about that just recently, actually. People already tag solo males with lore about their sexuality, why not give them a valid way to do it?

Well, that's about a character's sexuality, not what kind of sex is going to occur. There may be an argument to have lore tags for a character's sexuality (although given the number of sexual orientation terms there are, that would require either a lot of tags, or excluding a bunch to keep it to a small set), but a bisexual character that will have gay sex in a few pages still wouldn't be tagged male/male_(lore) or gay_(lore), since they're bisexual and there's no gay sex happening yet.