The bulk update request #892 is active.

Reason: sex_toy_in_/-ass/-cloaca/-nipple/-penis/-pussy/-slit/-urethra should always be an insertion

Some of these tags are just barely used. But I added them anyways, I hope that's ok.
And I was thinking about adding vibrator_in_sheath -> sex_toy_in_sheath -> sex_toy_insertion -> sheath_play.
But since sex_toy_in_sheath isn't a tag yet, I didn't add it.

Please point out if there is a misspelling or if I made some other mistakes.

Edit:I changed sex_toy_penetration to sex_toy_insertion because, for some reason, it was mass edited.

EDIT: The bulk update request #892 (forum #309707) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

Bump.

The bulk update request #892 (forum #309707) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

So what are we going to do about the sex_toy_penetration tag? It still has one active implication (from pegging). Also, if we are officially defining sex_toy_insertion as penetration, that implication should be made. While I'm at it, OP forgot sex_toy_in_mouth -> oral_penetration.

The whole sex toy implication tree needs a massive audit and has done for a while.

wat8548 said:
While I'm at it, OP forgot sex_toy_in_mouth -> oral_penetration.

Mouth stuff is not as simple as it looks, see topic #34137

The bulk update request #2883 is active.

remove implication buttplug_in_pussy (32) -> vaginal_penetration (334866)
remove implication dildo_in_pussy (1) -> vaginal_penetration (334866)

Reason: Implications are now redundant with the indirect implication through sex_toy_in_pussy.

EDIT: The bulk update request #2883 (forum #340266) has been approved by @gattonero2001.

waydence said:
Mouth stuff is not as simple as it looks, see topic #34137

I think making the tags for oral penetration a special case for the sake of some theoretical edge case confusion which no-one in that thread can prove has ever happened will be a lot more confusing than simply making it mirror the rest of the tag structure. And the sole argument against the sex_toy_in_mouth implication applies equally to every other form of sex_toy_insertion - I'm sure someone on here has had a fleshlight stuck up their ass.

wat8548 said:
And the sole argument against the sex_toy_in_mouth implication applies equally to every other form of sex_toy_insertion - I'm sure someone on here has had a fleshlight stuck up their ass.

This is sex_toy_in_mouth, but would you really call it oral_penetration?
post #1830926
This should be solved, like with penis_in_mouth in topic #34137, by sex_toy_penetrating_mouth, which implies sex_toy_in_mouth and oral_penetration

waydence said:
This is sex_toy_in_mouth, but would you really call it oral_penetration?

I wouldn't call it either - the correct tag is mouth_hold, as used. Perhaps a subtag of that could be considered for sex toys if someone can track down enough posts to justify it.

The type of people who frequent tag discussion threads often get way too hung up on non-issues to try to make themselves sound clever. There is clearly much more potential for confusion and mistags if the oral_penetration implication tree doesn't match the other penetration tags than if a couple of posts with unusual scenarios, which are in themselves far more likely to cause a tagger to read the wiki to check whether the tag they're thinking of actually applies, could be argued to match a literal reading of the tag name.

"Tag Name Literalism" is a plague on tag discourse in general, and this is a prime example of it. If you don't tag anthros as animal_humanoid on the basis that they are both animals and humanoid, kindly shut up about how you are confused by the word "in".

waydence said:
This should be solved, like with penis_in_mouth in topic #34137, by sex_toy_penetrating_mouth, which implies sex_toy_in_mouth and oral_penetration

An even better example was the allegation that penis_in_mouth could be confused for penis_tongue, which I considered so self-evidently ridiculous I didn't bother to mention it.

wat8548 said:
I wouldn't call it either - the correct tag is mouth_hold, as used.

post #2014744
Isn't mouth_hold or oral_penetration, but I (and I'm sure many others) would call it sex_toy_in_mouth.

wat8548 said:
The type of people who frequent tag discussion threads often get way too hung up on non-issues to try to make themselves sound clever. There is clearly much more potential for confusion and mistags if the oral_penetration implication tree doesn't match the other penetration tags than if a couple of posts with unusual scenarios, which are in themselves far more likely to cause a tagger to read the wiki to check whether the tag they're thinking of actually applies, could be argued to match a literal reading of the tag name.

Most people aren't doubtful enough to read wiki. Many wiki pages are empty or unhelpful. If you don't get tag wording right the first time you're risking to get a cluster.

waydence said:
Most people aren't doubtful enough to read wiki. Many wiki pages are empty or unhelpful. If you don't get tag wording right the first time you're risking to get a cluster.

And making sex_toy_in_mouth not mean the same thing as sex_toy_in_pussy is getting the wording very, very wrong.

The tag implication vibrator_in_sheath -> sheath_play has been rejected by @bitWolfy.

The bulk update request #2883 (forum #340266) has been approved by @gattonero2001.

The bulk update request #3981 is active.

create implication sex_toy_in_mouth (1434) -> oral_penetration (109413)

Reason: Sod it, I'm feeling like kicking some hornets' nests tonight.

First of all, I will reiterate what I wrote above:

wat8548 said:
The type of people who frequent tag discussion threads often get way too hung up on non-issues to try to make themselves sound clever. There is clearly much more potential for confusion and mistags if the oral_penetration implication tree doesn't match the other penetration tags than if a couple of posts with unusual scenarios, which are in themselves far more likely to cause a tagger to read the wiki to check whether the tag they're thinking of actually applies, could be argued to match a literal reading of the tag name.

"Tag Name Literalism" is a plague on tag discourse in general, and this is a prime example of it. If you don't tag anthros as animal_humanoid on the basis that they are both animals and humanoid, kindly shut up about how you are confused by the word "in".

I will also point out that sex_toy_in_mouth already implies sex_toy_insertion, a tag which it is difficult to imagine meaning anything going sideways.

Any potential accuracy gains from having sex_toy_in_mouth uniquely imply a wider range of scenarios than sex_toy_in_pussy, sex_toy_in_cloaca, etc. will be offset many times over by the fact that nobody will think to use whatever more specialised tag you can come up with (like the failed "penis_penetrating_mouth" proposal Waydence mentioned earlier). The lack of consistency will become a booby trap for inexperienced taggers, something we already have way too many of.

In general we have a policy of sticking to the most common meaning of a tag, even when the tag could technically be argued to include a contradictory one. We saw this played out over and over again before the foreskin and uncut tags were finally merged together after years of annoying people trying to find uncircumcised human dicks, because the uncut tag would frequently be missing when applicable. The naysayers insisted that uncut must remain a separate tag, because foreskin might not necessarily be attached to a penis or be in the process of being severed. So what happened next? Well, we still have a severed_foreskin tag and a circumcision tag, both of which have predictably (and thankfully) low numbers of posts, and there haven't been any complaints since.

If you can find any more posts like post #2014744, then just create a new tag by analogy to sideways_oral and don't make this any more complicated than it needs to be.

EDIT: The bulk update request #3981 (forum #355621) has been approved by @slyroon.

Alright you maniacs, I've just clicked through every single post in the search results for sex_toy_in_mouth -oral_penetration, 383 in total. Want to know how many posts I found where a character had a sex toy in their mouth that was not penetrating them? 25. You can view all of them here.

Now before you get too excited, you know what I found 29 of? Posts in which someone is wearing a ball_gag but not being orally penetrated. ball_gag, in common with other BDSM equipment tags, does not imply sex_toy and is unlikely ever to. Somebody's been adding sex_toy_in_mouth to those posts manually.

I also found 5 posts where the character was wearing some other kind of gag, and 10 posts where there was just no question that the tag was wrong. In total that's 44 posts where, even if you disagree with this implication, sex_toy_in_mouth should not have been added. View them all here.

There were also 10 borderline cases of a character licking a dildo but not actually penetrating their mouth with it. In most cases these should not be tagged sex_toy_in_mouth either, as the toy in question never passes the lips. You can view them here, for what that's worth. Not included is post #1644512, a borderline of the borderline, in which penetration is clearly about to take place but hasn't yet.

Finally, there are post #2660775 and post #2660776, which are sex toy object_vore. Yep. You sure see some shit when you go for a completionist run on e621. I have no clue whether that should be tagged as penetration or not.

To summarise, that's 301 posts out of 339 that, at the most conservative interpretation, should have been tagged oral_penetration but weren't. Let me just repeat that: by arguing against this BUR, you are stating that 301 posts are less important than 38 at most.

Oh, and here's another fun fact for you. Currently, the search results of sex_toy_in_mouth oral_penetration number 328 posts. That's right, there are now almost as many incompletely tagged sex_toy_in_mouth posts as correctly tagged ones! THIS IS WHY WE HAVE IMPLICATIONS IN THE FIRST DAMN PLACE!

wat8548 said:
To summarise, that's 301 posts out of 339 that, at the most conservative interpretation, should have been tagged oral_penetration but weren't. Let me just repeat that: by arguing against this BUR, you are stating that 301 posts are less important than 38 at most.

All it takes is 1 for an implication to be bad. Is your argument that 38 posts should be forced to have oral_penetration that don't have oral_penetration? Or that 38 posts should be forced to not have sex_toy_in_mouth that have a sex_toy_in_mouth?

If we go this route, I would prefer to have an alternate tag for the case of what otherwise could be sex_toy_in_mouth but isn't necessarily oral_penetration, and move them over before approving the implication. holding_sex_toy_in_mouth maybe? That should cover even my example where the mouth isn't necessarily holding it. That could then implicate sex_toy without oral_penetration (maybe oral? not sure on that).

watsit said:
If we go this route, I would prefer to have an alternate tag for the case of what otherwise could be sex_toy_in_mouth but isn't necessarily oral_penetration, and move them over before approving the implication. holding_sex_toy_in_mouth maybe? That should cover even my example where the mouth isn't necessarily holding it. That could then implicate sex_toy without oral_penetration (maybe oral? not sure on that).

That was the idea, yes, hence why I made the set. Most of them could simply be moved straight over to mouth_hold, maybe with a new subtag for sex toys if it's worth it. mouth_hold sex_toy has 89 results but in only a few of them is the sex toy being held. All but two of the 10 results for mouth_hold sex_toy_in_mouth depict oral penetration, implying that people already understand in what circumstances the latter tag is meant to be used.

mouth_hold sex_toy -oral_penetration -sex_toy_in_mouth has 76 results, of which I manually counted 17 with a sex toy in the mouth. You will note this is about double the hit rate of sex_toy_in_mouth posts where oral penetration is genuinely not happening. set:stimbnop mouth_hold, shockingly, returns only two results - the same two mentioned above - despite mouth_hold being an appropriate tag for the majority of the 25 posts there.

In conclusion, mouth_hold is a severely underused tag, and if this implication can help persuade people to use it instead of misusing a penetration tag, so much the better.

Plus, you disregarded the other part of my argument: sex_toy_in_mouth already implies sex_toy_insertion. Do you seriously think that sex_toy_insertion is an appropriate tag for images like this?

post #2832868

wat8548 said:
In conclusion, mouth_hold is a severely underused tag

It's not a particularly obvious tag name, which could explain its lack of use. "A character is holding something in their mouth, what should I tag for it?" A tag name like "mouth_hold" doesn't really spring to mind if you're not already aware of it. holding_in_mouth has a handful of uses, and is more obvious, IMO (also less ambiguity with snout_grab or chin_grab).

The bulk update request #3981 (forum #355621) has been approved by @slyroon.