Implicating cum_in_uterus → internal
Link to implication

Reason:

Just finished tagging those. The internal tag was missing from over 175 posts, which is more than 10% of cum_in_uterus. No valid exceptions were found.

^{(Makes me wonder how many instances of cum_inside are missing the internal tag. Probably a lot.)}

EDIT: The tag implication cum_in_uterus -> internal (forum #232695) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.

Was about to ask about goo characters, but apparently translucency counts, so these guys are valid:

post #929782 post #539663

I agree with this too. If there is the cum_in_uterus tag, then the internal tag is a must.

Maybe it should implicate internal_vaginal instead.

animperfectpatsy said:
Maybe it should implicate internal_vaginal instead.

I thought of this too, but I could see a very unlikely but still possible goof up where someone adds a cervix/uterus to a character with a cloaca, because sometimes artists say "screw anatomy, I want it to look hot".

I can think a possible exception to this, and it is the womb_creature tag. Though currently no posts within that tag actually include cum_in_uterus.

Watch us get some (smart)ar(se)tist upload a cum_on_womb image just to be in that outlying area. Only thing I can think of to argue against this request is prolapse tags, but I think those are extremely rare. Right?

alphamule said:
Watch us get some (smart)ar(se)tist upload a cum_on_womb image just to be in that outlying area. Only thing I can think of to argue against this request is prolapse tags, but I think those are extremely rare. Right?

I agree, cum leaking from a prolapsed uterus is cum_in_uterus, but not internal (see post #3085992).

Would a gaping vagina with cum in a visible cervix not also be cum_in_uterus but not internal, such as post #501153? Or does internal include seeing into gaping orifices? It's not really clear from the wiki.

korbok said:
Would a gaping vagina with cum in a visible cervix not also be cum_in_uterus but not internal, such as post #501153? Or does internal include seeing into gaping orifices? It's not really clear from the wiki.

Internal can only appear as translucent_body or cutaways, as a means to reveal something that is otherwise hidden from view.
This does not apply to gaping posts whereby the normally "hidden" parts of the body can now be seen externally, same logic should apply with prolapse.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Internal can only appear as translucent_body or cutaways, as a means to reveal something that is otherwise hidden from view.
This does not apply to gaping posts whereby the normally "hidden" parts of the body can now be seen externally, same logic should apply with prolapse.

More clearly stated version of others' thoughts on this, I guess. Thanks for wording it well! Such language should be considered in future, for people editing the Wiki (on other articles, not the one linked that already has it worded in a similar way).

There's so few, that we can just correct them manually? I almost wish like the big red "you created a new tag" warning, that we had a warning to possibly missing(or conflicting) tags for the worst offenders that often occur together(or apart). I abstained from voting, until I'm really sure.

A picture of a fetus with the background depicting the walls of uterus and there being the tip of a penis entering from an opening, shooting cum. Would this be internal? Would this be cum_in_uterus?

urielfrys said:
A picture of a fetus with the background depicting the walls of uterus and there being the tip of a penis entering from an opening, shooting cum. Would this be internal? Would this be cum_in_uterus?

It's implied, right? I'm pretty sure a womb is by definition, internal. Sadly, the way that tag works, I think they mean like, see-through part of the body? Squinting at it just right, technically, it's a zoomed-in and clipped internal shot? :shrugs:

urielfrys said:
A picture of a fetus with the background depicting the walls of uterus and there being the tip of a penis entering from an opening, shooting cum. Would this be internal? Would this be cum_in_uterus?

Example: post #2800954. Per the wiki, internal is for that thing where the perspective of the viewer is outside a body/building/whatever, and the artist "cuts away" or makes parts of the body translucent to reveal what's going on inside. In this image, the perspective of the viewer cannot see the outside at all, and there is no distinction between normally visible and revealed. So I think this is cum_in_uterus without internal.

This was uploaded 7 months ago, and I guess a few other exceptions have been added since Genjar did their holy work.

genjar said:
Implicating cum_in_uterus → internal
Link to implication

Reason:

Just finished tagging those. The internal tag was missing from over 175 posts, which is more than 10% of cum_in_uterus. No valid exceptions were found.

^{(Makes me wonder how many instances of cum_inside are missing the internal tag. Probably a lot.)}

I've had to remove my vote now, as I've just dug up a few exceptions that show it's possible for a uterus to be penetrated without technically having an internal view:
post #3229233 shows a cervical_prolapse exception.
post #3394982 and post #2521238 shows a gaping_pussy and a translucent penetrating object.
post#2222002 features a womb_creature
post #3107213 and post #599152 have verbal confirmation of cervical penetration (though I'm not sure if they count because of TWYS)

The tag implication cum_in_uterus -> internal (forum #232695) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.