The bulk update request #1086 is active.

This is now a general housekeeping update to imply all the vore types to vore.

I've made a visual guide for the changes. https://imgur.com/a/wOzcXJZ.

1) many [part]_vore tags do not imply vore
2) unusual_vore is not helpful, and can be removed
3) a few vore tags to be aliased

Scripts with titles:

Have applicable *_vore tags imply vore:
imply plant_vore -> vore
imply pec_vore -> vore
imply plushie_vore -> vore
imply toilet_vore -> vore
imply nasal_vore -> vore
imply naval_vore -> vore
imply bladder_vore -> vore
imply tuba_vore -> vore
imply slit_vore -> vore
imply wing_vore -> vore
imply udder_vore -> vore
imply tentacle_vore -> vore
imply navel_vore -> vore
imply hair_vore -> vore
imply goo_vore -> vore
imply abdominal_vore -> vore
imply techno_vore -> vore
imply paw_vore -> vore
imply mass_vore -> vore
imply self_vore -> vore
imply auto_anal_vore -> vore
imply auto_unbirth -> vore
imply transformation_vore -> vore
imply smoking_vore -> vore
imply accidental_vore -> vore
imply willing_vore -> vore
imply unwilling_vore -> vore
imply fatal_vore -> vore
imply partial_vore -> vore
imply cooking_vore -> vore
imply unaware_vore -> vore
imply non_fatal_vore -> vore
imply healing_vore -> vore
imply casual_vore -> vore
imply attempted_vore -> vore
imply reverse_forced_vore -> vore
imply reverse_vore -> vore
imply partial_cum_vore -> vore
imply assisted_vore -> vore
imply mutual_vore -> vore
imply endosoma -> vore

Remove unusual_vore implications:
unimply tail_vore -> unusual_vore
unimply breast_vore -> unusual_vore
unimply nipple_vore -> unusual_vore
unimply pouch_vore -> unusual_vore
unimply nasal_vore -> unusual_vore
unimply navel_vore -> unusual_vore

Imply types of imminent vore to imminent_vore
imply imminent_oral_vore -> imminent_vore
imply imminent_cock_vore -> imminent_vore
imply imminent_anal_vore -> imminent_vore
imply imminent_unbirth -> imminent_vore
imply imminent_tail_vore -> imminent_vore

A few aliases for housekeeping:
alias predation_vore -> hard_vore
alias cleavage_vore -> breast_vore
alias pecs_vore -> pec_vore
alias plush_vore -> plushie_vore
alias after_absorption_vore -> after_vore

EDIT: The bulk update request #1086 (forum #313005) has been approved by @Millcore.

TIL about tuba_vore.

I'm not sure I like the precedent of <fetish>_themed tags. If something's vore, it's vore, if it's not, it's not. If something is not vore but manages to satisfy some user's vore kink, doesn't seem to be a good thing to base the tag on. Case in point, you say

take a look at object_vore it is not vore, but it *is* of the vore fetish.

The vore fetish is the fetish of vore, so anything that's not vore is inherently not of the vore fetish. For example, swallowing a key to hide it from some guards. Technically object_vore, but to call it vore_themed or something for vore fetishists would like is quite a stretch.

Should there be a transformation_themed tag for posts that don't have a hint of transformation, but which works for some TF enthusiasts? A watersports_themed tag for posts that don't have watersports, but something such people might still enjoy? A zoo_themed tag for non-bestiality posts that have ferals some can interpret as being sexy? A voyeurism_themed tag for non-voyeurism posts that some voyeurs get a kick out of? somnophilia_themed, plushophilia_themed, shota/loli_themed, etc?

watsit said:
Should there be a transformation_themed tag for posts that don't have a hint of transformation, but which works for some TF enthusiasts? A watersports_themed tag for posts that don't have watersports, but something such people might still enjoy? A zoo_themed tag for non-bestiality posts that have ferals some can interpret as being sexy? A voyeurism_themed tag for non-voyeurism posts that some voyeurs get a kick out of? somnophilia_themed, plushophilia_themed, shota/loli_themed, etc?

The main argument in favour of *_themed tags is the large number of images - often part of sets or comics, but sometimes standalone - depicting imminent_* or after_*, which don't meet the strict TWYS requirements to be tagged *, and maybe aren't enough on their own to satisfy people with fetishes for *, but in practice both those enthusiasts and anybody who has * blacklisted will know exactly what they're looking at. Sometimes this leads to edit wars. Vore and transformation are two of the most obvious such fetishes, usually manifesting in an alarmingly detailed maw shot or suspiciously ripped clothing, but I could easily see e.g. watersports_themed being applied to a tag where someone has their dick in someone's mouth and is loudly proclaiming their intention to piss down their throat. I'm sure people who hate piss would want to see that blacklisted, but it's not actually watersports yet, is it?

wat8548 said:
The main argument in favour of *_themed tags is the large number of images - often part of sets or comics, but sometimes standalone - depicting imminent_* or after_*, which don't meet the strict TWYS requirements to be tagged *, and maybe aren't enough on their own to satisfy people with fetishes for *, but in practice both those enthusiasts and anybody who has * blacklisted will know exactly what they're looking at. Sometimes this leads to edit wars. Vore and transformation are two of the most obvious such fetishes, usually manifesting in an alarmingly detailed maw shot or suspiciously ripped clothing, but I could easily see e.g. watersports_themed being applied to a tag where someone has their dick in someone's mouth and is loudly proclaiming their intention to piss down their throat. I'm sure people who hate piss would want to see that blacklisted, but it's not actually watersports yet, is it?

Problem is these have trouble with TWYS. In particular, the meaning of text does not count for tagging purposes, e.g. a character saying they're pissing down another character's throat while it otherwise just looks like fellatio can't be tagged watersports since you can't see it, so it also can't be tagged watersports_themed since you similarly can't see anything watersports-related. If you can see something relating to (but is not) x, you can tag that thing, but I don't think we need a separate x_themed tag just to say some fans of x may enjoy the post.

The point at which an x_themed tag would apply because fans of x may like it is going to be different for everyone. For instance, you mentioned "an alarmingly detailed maw shot", but where's the line between an "alarmingly detailed" maw shot and a simple "detailed" maw shot? At least "does this count as vore?" is something you can look at and point out specific details in the image to say "yes, this and that are showing that one character ate/swallowed/absorbed another", which can then be applied consistently with other pictures showing similar details. But "is the amount of detail on this maw enough to call it vore-related?" is completely subjective open to interpretation, where different people can and will have different opinions on anything that's pointed out, leading to a bunch more tag wars. An open mouth with some saliva is enough for some. A wide open mouth with a bit of saliva and teeth bared may be interpreted by one person as a threat to harm/bite, while another person can think the character character about to eat/swallow another.

At the very least, I strongly disagree with the proposed planet_vore -> vore_themed and object_vore -> vore_themed implications. Aside from the word 'vore' being in the tags, it's not vore. post #2187920 is technically "object_vore", but I would in no way call it "vore related", it's just some pool balls being forced down a character's throat which is pinched off at the bottom (fun fact: something similar was actually used as a method of fishing in certain places in the past). post #1878751 moreso, it's just a character fellatiating a dildo, which slips from her grasp and goes down her throat. Should post #2450824 really be considered "vore themed"? As it is, "vore" has a big problem with being over-ascribed; posts that are only imminent_vore more often than not are also erroneously tagged vore, which it should not be since vore being imminent implicitly means vore is not yet happening. That there are also tags like object_vore (instead of the more accurate swallowing_object, anal_insertion, oral_insertion, etc) and planet_vore (instead of giga + relevant insertion tags) is indicative of how readily some people want to tag "vore" on things that are not. Add in vore_themed, and this problem will be magnified since people will tag it directly instead of letting it be a result of other tagged elements in the picture.

watsit said:
As it is, "vore" has a big problem with being over-ascribed; posts that are only imminent_vore more often than not are also erroneously tagged vore, which it should not be since vore being imminent implicitly means vore is not yet happening. That there are also tags like object_vore (instead of the more accurate swallowing_object, anal_insertion, oral_insertion, etc) and planet_vore (instead of giga + relevant insertion tags) is indicative of how readily some people want to tag "vore" on things that are not. Add in vore_themed, and this problem will be magnified since people will tag it directly instead of letting it be a result of other tagged elements in the picture.

Alright, let's flip it around then: do you think the imminent_vore tag, as currently defined and applied, should be allowed to stand?

wat8548 said:
Alright, let's flip it around then: do you think the imminent_vore tag, as currently defined and applied, should be allowed to stand?

For the most part, yes. I'd have no problem with a vore_themed kind of tag if it could be kept to being an implication of tags that are actually vore-related. But I don't see that happening since people can and will tag it directly when it shouldn't be.

watsit said:
For the most part, yes. I'd have no problem with a vore_themed kind of tag if it could be kept to being an implication of tags that are actually vore-related. But I don't see that happening since people can and will tag it directly when it shouldn't be.

It seems highly unlikely to me that any significant number of people would go out of their way to add an obscure, unknown outside this site, tag like vore_themed to a post which did not feature any of the tags which implicate it. If they do take exception to a post's fetishy undertones above and beyond what can be justified through TWYS, it is far more likely they would simply tag the post with vore instead, same as how solo male content gets tagged with male/male (likely aliased from gay) all the time. Not only would the absence of a vore_themed tag not prevent such misbehaviour, there is nothing preventing it now.

wat8548 said:
Not only would the absence of a vore_themed tag not prevent such misbehaviour, there is nothing preventing it now.

Except currently it doesn't exist, so no one really thinks to add a non-existent tag. If it starts getting added to posts because of implications from vore/imminent_vore, people will see it's a valid tag and start adding it to other posts that they think is "vore themed" but shouldn't have it. Also, since currently the only valid tags that should implicate it are vore and imminent_vore, is it even needed? ~vore ~imminent_vore would get you the same results vore_themed would, without the risk of people misusing a more vague and subjective tag. Given that object_vore and planet_vore aren't even valid tags (object_vore is functionally identical to object_insertion, and planet_vore is just inserting planets into orifices, it's not vore), let alone not necessarily vore-themed, are there any other tags that should implicate vore_themed besides the two?

watsit said:
swallowing a key to hide it from some guards

I now see that perhaps a distinction should be made between object_vore and object_ingestion (object_ingestion is not a tag... yet?) with object_vore an object which contains a creature(s) is consumed. with object_ingestion only an object it consumed. Vore is defined as a creature eating another creature, so applying object_vore to eating a key doesn't make sense - there is no vore involved. object_ingestion would fit well, though.

(side note, I believe the original intended use for object_vore is a macro character consuming an object (train,building,etc) with creatures/people in it.)

With that said, however - if that distinction is made - object vore should imply vore directly. Which would in turn reduce the necessity of the vore_themed tag outside the imminent_x_vore tags, which are not "related" to a vore tag.

so in bullet form:
-redefine object_vore as consuming an object with creatures (e.g., car, train, building) (presumably, as an image of a macro character eating an office building might not show the occupants)
-start a new tag object_ingestion and define is as consuming of exclusively non-food non-creature items.
-do not use/create vore_themed as it would only be useful for the imminent_*_vore tags, which are already implicating imminent_vore in this BUR.

Thoughts?

tsukemono said:
I now see that perhaps a distinction should be made between object_vore and object_ingestion (object_ingestion is not a tag... yet?)

oral_insertion (currently aliased to oral_penetration) would make sense for a general ingestion tag. anal_ and vaginal_ variants go along with it. There's also swallowing/swallowing_object.

tsukemono said:
(side note, I believe the original intended use for object_vore is a macro character consuming an object (train,building,etc) with creatures/people in it.)

For that to be the case, you'd have to be able to see creatures/people in said object, bringing it back to normal vore/imminent_vore, no need for a special object_vore tag. Simply an object where people/creatures could be, but you don't see them, wouldn't count; the train/building/etc could be empty for all we know. That would go for planet_vore as well, if you can't see people being vored, it's not vore as it can be an empty planet and would just be insertion/penetration.

tsukemono said:
With that said, however - if that distinction is made - object vore should imply vore directly.

I would invalidate it, with a wiki page saying to use the appropriate vore tag if you can see people/creatures being vored, and/or the appropriate swallowing/penetration tag if you just see an object being inserted into some orifice.

watsit said:
oral_insertion (currently aliased to oral_penetration) would make sense for a general ingestion tag. anal_ and vaginal_ variants go along with it. There's also swallowing/swallowing_object.

For that to be the case, you'd have to be able to see creatures/people in said object, bringing it back to normal vore/imminent_vore, no need for a special object_vore tag. Simply an object where people/creatures could be, but you don't see them, wouldn't count; the train/building/etc could be empty for all we know. That would go for planet_vore as well, if you can't see people being vored, it's not vore as it can be an empty planet and would just be insertion/penetration.

I would invalidate it, with a wiki page saying to use the appropriate vore tag if you can see people/creatures being vored, and/or the appropriate swallowing/penetration tag if you just see an object being inserted into some orifice.

For now, I will remove the vore_themed from the BUR to separate the discussion of it's questionable usefulness, from updating all the other tags that should imply vore. Thoughts on the remainder of the BUR?

watsit said:
Also, since currently the only valid tags that should implicate it are vore and imminent_vore, is it even needed?

Don't forget after_vore. But circling back to my original example of an "alarmingly detailed mawshot", I don't think it's as subjective as you're making out - it's generally pretty easy to tell (to the extent of being a meme) what fetishes an artist has by looking at their work. Besides, there could be context clues which, while not otherwise meeting the TWYS threshold, make it clear that vore is in this image's near future/recent past, or even present in the case of an insufficiently distinct belly bulge with accompanying dialogue. Another example which springs to mind is the frequently encountered "first page of a transformation comic" scenario, where the protagonist buys a suspicious-looking bottle of "Dragon Juice" or whatever. We all know what's about to happen, but because we can't "see" it it doesn't get tagged.

I will admit to an interest here. I have both vore and transformation blacklisted, which means a regular experience for me on this site is clicking on an image or pool with a character who looks superficially cute from the thumbnail, feeling something slightly off about the image on closer examination, and then noticing it has four child posts and they're all blacklisted.

Would you be happier if *_themed were made into lore tags?

watsit said:
Given that object_vore and planet_vore aren't even valid tags (object_vore is functionally identical to object_insertion, and planet_vore is just inserting planets into orifices, it's not vore), let alone not necessarily vore-themed, are there any other tags that should implicate vore_themed besides the two?

Apart from anything else, object_vore strikes me as a misnamed tag. The convention of all the other vore tags implies that the object should be doing the ingestion, not being ingested.

tsukemono said:
For now, I will remove the vore_themed from the BUR to separate the discussion of it's questionable usefulness, from updating all the other tags that should imply vore. Thoughts on the remainder of the BUR?

What is transformation_vore? There's no wiki, but it looks to be similar to assimilation. At least, post #2606045 seems like it should be assimilation instead of transformation_vore. With image like post #2359240, I could've sworn there was already a tag where two character merge and one overtakes the other, but I can't think of it.

EDIT:

wat8548 said:
Don't forget after_vore.

True. Though I wonder how many people consider that to just be part of vore and tag it as such.

wat8548 said:
But circling back to my original example of an "alarmingly detailed mawshot", I don't think it's as subjective as you're making out - it's generally pretty easy to tell (to the extent of being a meme) what fetishes an artist has by looking at their work.

Whether or not an artist has a particular fetish themselves shouldn't factor into tagging. Someone who's completely unaware of who an artist is and their previous work, should be able to tag their stuff fully and properly, as should pictures by an artist who's just starting to dip their toe into some fetish without outright drawing it. For instance, I honestly wouldn't have thought post #2278076 was vore related if it wasn't said to be. Just a smaller human being threatened by a larger dragon, who may or may not do anything. The artist isn't known for doing vore, though they have done a few such pieces on occasion. Similarly post #2323224, if I didn't know who Hida was and the kind of art they commission, it more looks like they're being blown away rather than sucked in. Maybe that's just me being naive, but that's how I interpreted them when seeing them.

wat8548 said:
Another example which springs to mind is the frequently encountered "first page of a transformation comic" scenario, where the protagonist buys a suspicious-looking bottle of "Dragon Juice" or whatever. We all know what's about to happen, but because we can't "see" it it doesn't get tagged.

Right, it doesn't get tagged because you can't see it. Each post is tagged on its own, not using what other posts show. Artists can always subvert expectations. For all we know, it can bind a dragon spirit to them. Or it could given them dragon-like abilities without any physical changes. And if the follow-up pages were never posted or made, the one that was should still be fully and properly taggable. And if they are made and posted, previous posts shouldn't need their tags changed to accommodate.

wat8548 said:
Would you be happier if *_themed were made into lore tags?

Not really. As I understand it, lore tags are for when 'creator says x, there's nothing contradicting that, so it can be tagged x_(lore)'. It's not for users to decide 'people who like x may like this, so it can be tagged x_themed_(lore)'. Plus lore tags are only applied when the relevant general tag can't be, so you wouldn't tag vore_themed_(lore) if vore was tagged (just as you don't tag male_(lore) if the character is already tagged male), since that would be redundant tagging.

wat8548 said:
Apart from anything else, object_vore strikes me as a misnamed tag. The convention of all the other vore tags implies that the object should be doing the ingestion, not being ingested.

Yeah, various tags seem to have an issue where a set of related <noun>_<verb> tags have different meanings; some being <noun> is doing <verb>, and for others <noun> is having <verb> done to it. See the penetration tags for another example.

watsit said:
For instance, I honestly wouldn't have thought post #2278076 was vore related if it wasn't said to be.

Now that's an alarmingly detailed mawshot if ever I've seen one...

watsit said:
Not really. As I understand it, lore tags are for when 'creator says x, there's nothing contradicting that, so it can be tagged x_(lore)'. It's not for users to decide 'people who like x may like this, so it can be tagged x_themed_(lore)'.

Except you said earlier that elements like text in the image can't be used to determine tags, despite the fact they are clearly visible. (Well, unless you can't read the language - see post #2791322 for an interesting watersports-themed example.) So there is clearly a liminal space between "nobody in their right mind would tag this" and "this image meets the strict e621 criteria for this tag". The gender_(lore) tags were mainly introduced in response to an interminable series of scuffles at this border, featuring effeminate males in panties being tagged as flat-chested females by admin fiat and other such battles. To speak nothing of the utter mess that is the bestiality tag. Having a specialised tag for the more questionable cases would be an improvement on the current state of affairs.

Apart from anything else, if the creator posts a vore image which they explicitly describe as the follow-up to the preceding non-vore image, surely that by definition counts as them saying something?

watsit said:
Yeah, various tags seem to have an issue where a set of related <noun>_<verb> tags have different meanings; some being <noun> is doing <verb>, and for others <noun> is having <verb> done to it. See the penetration tags for another example.

anal_penetration: the ultimate solution to the two bottoms problem.

watsit said:
I honestly wouldn't have thought post #2278076 was vore related if it wasn't said to be. Just a smaller human being threatened by a larger dragon, who may or may not do anything. The artist isn't known for doing vore, though they have done a few such pieces on occasion. Similarly post #2323224, if I didn't know who Hida was and the kind of art they commission, it more looks like they're being blown away rather than sucked in. Maybe that's just me being naive, but that's how I interpreted them when seeing them

I think that's why imminent_vore is a good tag, it doesn't imply vore. I personally think both of those images are a predator about to eat their prey. It is a subjective tag, so I can see there being disagreements to what really is "imminent". That the nature of the tag unfortunately. (reminds me of that scene in Minority Report, lol https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arACDYMiNuI&t=29s)

wat8548 said:Apart from anything else, object_vore strikes me as a misnamed tag. The convention of all the other vore tags implies that the object should be doing the ingestion, not being ingested.

That's an interesting thing I came across when trying to categorize these tags. If you open the imgur link in the original post you'll see I have a "what is consuming" and "what is consumed" section.

The bulk update request #1086 (forum #313005) has been approved by @Millcore.

Why was after_absorption_vore aliased away to after_vore?
Just because it's not used often it shouldn't be entirely removed. I would recommend just an implication instead.

tsukemono said:
The bulk update request #1086 is active.

create implication vacuum_vore (90) -> vore (79727)
create implication plant_vore (70) -> vore (79727)
create implication pec_vore (0) -> vore (79727)
create implication plushie_vore (28) -> vore (79727)
create implication toilet_vore (0) -> vore (79727)
create implication nasal_vore (40) -> vore (79727)
create implication naval_vore (0) -> vore (79727)
create implication bladder_vore (69) -> vore (79727)
create implication tuba_vore (11) -> vore (79727)
create implication slit_vore (27) -> vore (79727)
create implication wing_vore (6) -> vore (79727)
create implication udder_vore (16) -> vore (79727)
create implication tentacle_vore (17) -> vore (79727)
create implication navel_vore (86) -> vore (79727)
create implication hair_vore (7) -> vore (79727)
create implication goo_vore (24) -> vore (79727)
create implication abdominal_vore (0) -> vore (79727)
create implication techno_vore (0) -> vore (79727)
create implication paw_vore (1) -> vore (79727)
create implication mass_vore (1272) -> vore (79727)
create implication self_vore (0) -> vore (79727)
create implication auto_anal_vore (0) -> vore (79727)
create implication auto_unbirth (10) -> vore (79727)
create implication transformation_vore (0) -> vore (79727)
create implication smoking_vore (0) -> vore (79727)
create implication accidental_vore (485) -> vore (79727)
create implication willing_vore (0) -> vore (79727)
create implication unwilling_vore (0) -> vore (79727)
create implication fatal_vore (7964) -> vore (79727)
create implication partial_vore (0) -> vore (79727)
create implication cooking_vore (0) -> vore (79727)
create implication unaware_vore (25) -> vore (79727)
create implication non_fatal_vore (196) -> vore (79727)
create implication healing_vore (38) -> vore (79727)
create implication casual_vore (255) -> vore (79727)
create implication attempted_vore (4) -> vore (79727)
create implication reverse_forced_vore (0) -> vore (79727)
create implication reverse_vore (4) -> vore (79727)
create implication partial_cum_vore (0) -> vore (79727)
create implication assisted_vore (53) -> vore (79727)
create implication mutual_vore (8) -> vore (79727)
create implication endosoma (1709) -> vore (79727)
remove implication tail_vore (688) -> unusual_vore (768)
remove implication breast_vore (385) -> unusual_vore (768)
remove implication nipple_vore (269) -> unusual_vore (768)
remove implication pouch_vore (53) -> unusual_vore (768)
remove implication nasal_vore (40) -> unusual_vore (768)
remove implication navel_vore (86) -> unusual_vore (768)
create implication imminent_oral_vore (941) -> imminent_vore (7571)
create implication imminent_cock_vore (64) -> imminent_vore (7571)
create implication imminent_anal_vore (207) -> imminent_vore (7571)
create implication imminent_unbirth (118) -> imminent_vore (7571)
create implication imminent_tail_vore (9) -> imminent_vore (7571)
create alias predation_vore (0) -> hard_vore (1117)
create alias cleavage_vore (0) -> breast_vore (385)
create alias pecs_vore (0) -> pec_vore (0)
create alias plush_vore (0) -> plushie_vore (28)
create alias after_absorption_vore (0) -> after_vore (7225)

This is now a general housekeeping update to imply all the vore types to vore.

I've made a visual guide for the changes. https://imgur.com/a/wOzcXJZ.

1) many [part]_vore tags do not imply vore
2) unusual_vore is not helpful, and can be removed
3) a few vore tags to be aliased

Scripts with titles:

Have applicable *_vore tags imply vore:
imply plant_vore -> vore
imply pec_vore -> vore
imply plushie_vore -> vore
imply toilet_vore -> vore
imply nasal_vore -> vore
imply naval_vore -> vore
imply bladder_vore -> vore
imply tuba_vore -> vore
imply slit_vore -> vore
imply wing_vore -> vore
imply udder_vore -> vore
imply tentacle_vore -> vore
imply navel_vore -> vore
imply hair_vore -> vore
imply goo_vore -> vore
imply abdominal_vore -> vore
imply techno_vore -> vore
imply paw_vore -> vore
imply mass_vore -> vore
imply self_vore -> vore
imply auto_anal_vore -> vore
imply auto_unbirth -> vore
imply transformation_vore -> vore
imply smoking_vore -> vore
imply accidental_vore -> vore
imply willing_vore -> vore
imply unwilling_vore -> vore
imply fatal_vore -> vore
imply partial_vore -> vore
imply cooking_vore -> vore
imply unaware_vore -> vore
imply non_fatal_vore -> vore
imply healing_vore -> vore
imply casual_vore -> vore
imply attempted_vore -> vore
imply reverse_forced_vore -> vore
imply reverse_vore -> vore
imply partial_cum_vore -> vore
imply assisted_vore -> vore
imply mutual_vore -> vore
imply endosoma -> vore

Remove unusual_vore implications:
unimply tail_vore -> unusual_vore
unimply breast_vore -> unusual_vore
unimply nipple_vore -> unusual_vore
unimply pouch_vore -> unusual_vore
unimply nasal_vore -> unusual_vore
unimply navel_vore -> unusual_vore

Imply types of imminent vore to imminent_vore
imply imminent_oral_vore -> imminent_vore
imply imminent_cock_vore -> imminent_vore
imply imminent_anal_vore -> imminent_vore
imply imminent_unbirth -> imminent_vore
imply imminent_tail_vore -> imminent_vore

A few aliases for housekeeping:
alias predation_vore -> hard_vore
alias cleavage_vore -> breast_vore
alias pecs_vore -> pec_vore
alias plush_vore -> plushie_vore
alias after_absorption_vore -> after_vore

EDIT: The bulk update request #1086 (forum #313005) has been approved by @Millcore.

There are some wild *_vore implications, do we even want smoking_vore or toilet vore or reverse vore or reverse forced vore or techno vore or paw vore or attempted vore or partial vore (somehow partial cum vore is populated?) or auto anal vore (might be useful, but 0 posts)

The bulk update request #7950 has been rejected.

remove implication forced_vore (2) -> forced (102395)
remove implication self_vore (0) -> vore (79727)

Reason: Aliased tags with implications

EDIT: The bulk update request #7950 (forum #403748) has been rejected by @Earlopain.

The tag implication self_vore -> vore has been rejected by @Earlopain.

The bulk update request #7950 (forum #403748) has been rejected by @Earlopain.

Didn't see this beforehand so just did them myself, whoops

earlopain said:
Didn't see this beforehand so just did them myself, whoops

I was told that admins couldn't reject approved BURs?