The tag implication #68195 vore_tattoo -> tattooification has been rejected.

Reason: Vore tattoos are the concept of a consumed character being more-or-less transformed into a tattoo on another characters body through vore, and the wiki for tattooification seems to cover all situations where a character becomes a tattoo (and even has a section dedicated to vore tattoos). Should just be an implication since tattooification exists outside of vore and after-vore contexts.

EDIT: The tag implication vore_tattoo -> tattooification (forum #456257) has been rejected by @StressedEnchillada8.

You were so focused on whether you could, that you've never bothered to wonder if you should.

instances where vore_tattoo tends to be used they don't really seem like transformation, and honestly, don't really seem like tattoos either...

they seem more like the vore equivalent to a victory mark (those decals you see on fighters and other military vehicles that denote target kills). from what I'm seeing the characters aren't being transformed into a tattoo, as much as the fact that they were vored is being marked on the pred.

dba_afish said:
instances where vore_tattoo tends to be used they don't really seem like transformation, and honestly, don't really seem like tattoos either...

they seem more like the vore equivalent to a victory mark (those decals you see on fighters and other military vehicles that denote target kills). from what I'm seeing the characters aren't being transformed into a tattoo, as much as the fact that they were vored is being marked on the pred.

I do agree that vore tattoos aren't fitting to be labeled as transformations, and it can be more accurately described as being absorbed into one, as nearly all vore tattoos in pictures are the end-result of digestion (excluding any hypothetical weird hijinks a transformation through vore scenario may traverse into).

I'm a bit more ambiguous about them not being tattoos, though. While they definitely can and do function as a victory mark like you described (I hadn't even thought of that comparison before lol), they're being put on to preds, i.e., (almost entirely) living beings, and not something like an aircraft or other inanimate object, which I feel like would make describing them as tattoos be more fitting than, say, on a fighter jet. I could definitely be wrong though.

I'll also say that the tattoo tag does specify that it's the same definition as the real world, being ink

on second thought
tattooification -vore -vore_tattoo nets only 9 posts (and, if you wanted to, you could argue that the silhouettes placed directly on buttocks (without any indication of progress like this specific one) greatly implies vore took place, which would reduce the search to a measly 2 posts). Actual tattooification is WAY nicher than I thought it was, and it not being literal tattoos does make it feel kind of weird to implicate; probably shouldve made that search before creating a suggestion
I have a feeling that doing 'vore_tattoo -> after_vore' makes way more sense. vore_tattoo should definitely implicate something, imo, and I feel like in the context of what vore tattoos are there would be little pushback on just that.

stressedenchillada8 said:
on second thought
tattooification -vore -vore_tattoo nets only 9 posts (and, if you wanted to, you could argue that the silhouettes placed directly on buttocks (without any indication of progress like this specific one) greatly implies vore took place, which would reduce the search to a measly 2 posts). Actual tattooification is WAY nicher than I thought it was, and it not being literal tattoos does make it feel kind of weird to implicate; probably shouldve made that search before creating a suggestion
I have a feeling that doing 'vore_tattoo -> after_vore' makes way more sense. vore_tattoo should definitely implicate something, imo, and I feel like in the context of what vore tattoos are there would be little pushback on just that.

That's a better implication

nin10dope said:
That's a better implication

mhm
I'll reject this suggestion and get a new thread started.

The tag implication vore_tattoo -> tattooification (forum #456257) has been rejected by @StressedEnchillada8.

stressedenchillada8 said:
mhm
I'll reject this suggestion and get a new thread started.

You can still use this thread for it, just copy the topic id (57844 in this case) and paste it into the optional forum textbox when making the request

The bulk update request #11532 is pending approval.

create implication vore_tattoo (243) -> after_vore (7620)

Reason: In vore contexts, vore tattoos are virtually always created from a prey character being absorbed into the predator and being displayed on the pred's body as a silhouette or icon of sorts; this fits the criteria for after_vore 's wiki page, as the prey character is no longer in their physical form once they have become absorbed/digested by their pred, marking it the final results/aftermath of the vore.

The name "vore tattoo" makes me think of a character being vored by a tattoo.

As it is, there are some that have no indication of vore, and just looks like a sticker/tattoo/mark on a character:
post #5382058 post #5325614 post #5168537 post #5116276

And some of it is active vore rather than after_vore:
post #5520049 post #5317476

watsit said:
The name "vore tattoo" makes me think of a character being vored by a tattoo.

As it is, there are some that have no indication of vore, and just looks like a sticker/tattoo/mark on a character:
post #5382058 post #5325614 post #5168537 post #5116276

And some of it is active vore rather than after_vore:
post #5520049 post #5317476

something like prey_mark would probably be a better tag name, since it's a mark on a pred that denotes cosumed (or to-be consumed, I guess) prey. we use that format for paternity_mark which is a tangentially similar tag for pregnancy rather than vore.