The bulk update request #5354 is pending approval.

remove implication selfcest (5091) -> square_crossover (8117)

Reason: Not all instances of selfcest will be a square crossover. Selfcest includes a character being sexual with an exact clone of themselves, while a square crossover is two distinct versions of the same character.

According to its wiki, selfcest doesn't have to be exact clones, it could be any character boning another version of themselves. Plus from what I've seen of the actual tag use (which isn't very close for what it's worth), users aren't making that exacting distinction either.

animperfectpatsy said:
According to its wiki, selfcest doesn't have to be exact clones, it could be any character boning another version of themselves.

It doesn't have to be an exact clone, but it can be. A square crossover, in contrast, can't be clones (it must be two different incarnations, or else it's not a crossover), so the instances of selfcest that are clones are being mistagged with square_crossover. This would be like having male/female imply group, since male/female doesn't have to only be two characters, even though it can be.

Why is it called "Square Crossover"? that name is so damn stupid, like how am I supposed to know that THAT is a thing with a name like that!?
That name is as BAD as Facaris for abscured face characters!

closetpossum said:
Why is it called "Square Crossover"? that name is so damn stupid, like how am I supposed to know that THAT is a thing with a name like that!?
That name is as BAD as Facaris for abscured face characters!

I thought it had something to do with different characters from square enix crossing over. Not like that doesnt exist

closetpossum said:
Why is it called "Square Crossover"? that name is so damn stupid, like how am I supposed to know that THAT is a thing with a name like that!?
That name is as BAD as Facaris for abscured face characters!

From the wiki:

square_crossover says:
_{Note: Don't ask about the name, nobody remembers the origin for certain. May have originally referred to Square Enix crossovers like Kingdom Hearts, where some Disney characters meet their older versions.}

I'd support aliasing it to a clearer name, if anyone can come up with one.

watsit said:
From the wiki:
I'd support aliasing it to a clearer name, if anyone can come up with one.

pretty sure I seen doujinshis do this that had a better name.....ooor I think they're all just called Selfcest. Sorry.
But I do agree that 2 versions of someone acting scandalous should be named to something more clearer

same_character_crossover?
character_version_crossover?

cloudpie said:
same_character_crossover?
character_version_crossover?

same_character_crossover sounds like it could be easily confused for clones, or a character meeting their same self. character_version_crossover sounds weird IMO, and I could still see it being confused for the same character at a different age (e.g. baby Tulin from Breath of the Wild, and child/teenage Tulin from Tears of the Kingdom; same exact character from the same continuity, one's just a bit older due to the passage of time), or a different form of the same character (e.g. Midna and Midna (true form), which both come from the same game). I don't think these really fit the purpose of the square_crossover tag.

I doubt it has to do with Kingdom Hearts like the wiki page says, because that only happens ONCE in that series, and that's much more Past Meets Present.

It raises the question of where it does come from, though. It's not a term anyone else uses. Googling it only brings up sandals. I agree we need a better name.

TV Tropes uses the term Intra-Franchise Crossover ... and that page does not list anything Square Enix is involved with save for Super Smash Bros.

lendrimujina said:
TV Tropes uses the term Intra-Franchise Crossover ... and that page does not list anything Square Enix is involved with save for Super Smash Bros.

Intra-Franchise Crossover wouldn't work here, unfortunately, since it can also refer to OC and fursonas that aren't from a franchise (e.g. pklucario's Ethan, originally a Lucario, was later given a new design as a fox, still named Ethan; they sometimes appear together ).

watsit said:
same_character_crossover sounds like it could be easily confused for clones, or a character meeting their same self. character_version_crossover sounds weird IMO, and I could still see it being confused for the same character at a different age (e.g. baby Tulin from Breath of the Wild, and child/teenage Tulin from Tears of the Kingdom; same exact character from the same continuity, one's just a bit older due to the passage of time), or a different form of the same character (e.g. Midna and Midna (true form), which both come from the same game). I don't think these really fit the purpose of the square_crossover tag.

How about "alter-versioncest" - "alter_versioncest" - "alternate_version_incest" - "altercest"

I don't really see a problem with square_crossover applying to any post containing more than once instance of the same character. from double_cherry to time_travel to ditto to whatever, the tag should apply to all of them. it's usually going to be impossible to determine the origin of a duplicate character via TWYS, it dosn't make sense to try to narrow its definition like this.

and square_crossover is a fine tagname. even if its etymology isn't fully understood, it kinda gets its meaning across, even just by reading it from the tag list. it's well better than stuff like flesh_tunnel, which has a known etymology and is a word used outside of e6.

darryus said:
I don't really see a problem with square_crossover applying to any post containing more than once instance of the same character.

It's not really a crossover if it's not characters crossing over. The idea of a character interacting with a separate distinct version of themselves, rather than a copy of their same self, is worth tagging IMO.

darryus said:
it's usually going to be impossible to determine the origin of a duplicate character via TWYS, it dosn't make sense to try to narrow its definition like this.

That's been the intent of the tag, where a character that has gone through design revisions has two or more of those designs meet up. Most of the time a character has a distinct design change, it's given a new character tag, e.g. classic_sonic vs modern sonic, so TWYS isn't really a problem. If they've gone through a design change, you'll be able to visually distinguish them. Broadening the scope to include multiple of any instance creates significant overlap with clone, making it harder to find posts with different versions.