Although implied_impregnation tag is created, impregnation has almost the same role as implied_impregnation according to impregnation wiki.

Such as actual depictions of a sperm cell hitting an ovum, or scenes where the character is saying that they will become pregnant as a result of being cum inside.

I think that it is necessary to revise implied_impregnation tag or impregnation wiki.

implied impregnation is incredibly subjective and vague tag and i believe that it should be aliased away. this sort of stuff is better suited for sets.

I concur.
Based on how it's tagged, it clearly doesn't work. Any vaginal sex regardless of species, age, or any signs of impregnation is 'implied impregnation'? That's pretty much identical to cum_in_pussy.

(The user who populated that tag should've been reported for tag vandalism, since he untagged impregnation from a lot of those. Too bad that nobody noticed in time.)

I don't know...a lot of times these characters aren't saying anything definitive...it's stuff like "lets make puppies!" and "give me your babies!" They don't KNOW they're going to get pregnant, they're just saying shit.

Perhaps the tag should be something like possible_impregnation for when a character mentions pregnancy, but there is no actual firm evidence, i.e. sperm hitting an ovum being the only way to definitively tell.

Depends on how granular you want to be with it, but it just seems weird that we just take these character's word for it that they WILL become pregnant when it could all just be sex talk.

Dyrone said:
Perhaps the tag should be something like possible_impregnation for when a character mentions pregnancy, but there is no actual firm evidence, i.e. sperm hitting an ovum being the only way to definitively tell.

This raises the question of whether or not that is actually sufficient. Say there is an image of a human having sex with a feral canine. Sperm can hit ovum, sure, but it's not actually going to cause a pregnancy due to incompatible genetics.

I don't think we take that into consideration when tagging, and would just treat it as a regular impregnation picture, but it's something to think about at least.

Clawdragons said:
This raises the question of whether or not that is actually sufficient. Say there is an image of a human having sex with a feral canine. Sperm can hit ovum, sure, but it's not actually going to cause a pregnancy due to incompatible genetics.

I believe that point of the impregnation tag is to group the fetish under the tag regardless of how it is depicted. Sperm homing in on an egg, penetrating it, sequence of sex leading to pregnancy, or a pictograph of an egg are all equally relevant. All are drawn to suggest that the character has been impregnated.

Essentially, the impregnation tag is for 'implied impregnation'. Because the only way to really confirm it in art is to show a sequence that leads to pregnancy, and those are rather rare.

Genjar said:
I believe that point of the impregnation tag is to group the fetish under the tag regardless of how it is depicted. Sperm homing in on an egg, penetrating it, sequence of sex leading to pregnancy, or a pictograph of an egg are all equally relevant. All are drawn to suggest that the character has been impregnated.

All that is fine, I was more talking about when a character speaks about pregnancy, but the wording is vague...for example "I want your babies!" could just be another way of saying "cum inside me", whereas something like "Oh no! It's not a safe day! I'm definitely pregnant!" Is more concrete.

An even greyer area could be something like "dummy! You could make me pregnant!" Because the character herself is basically admitting she is not sure whether or not she was impregnated. So would such an image warrant a impregnation tag, or something different?

Obviously in all these examples there would have visible proof of a vaginal creampie, otherwise it's just all talk and no substance.