The bulk update request #1280 has been rejected.

create implication t-dick (0) -> trans_(lore) (31922)
create implication hyper_t-dick (2) -> t-dick (0)

Reason: t-dick is exclusive to trans characters. hyper t-dick is a form of t-dick.

apologies for spamming implication/alias requests before this, i only just found out about bulk update requests OTL

EDIT: The bulk update request #1280 (forum #316042) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

I don't think t-dick should imply trans_(lore) since will already imply visibly_trans, and lore tags shouldn't normally be used when they're redundant with general tags (e.g. you don't tag male_(lore) when male is already tagged; otherwise, visibly_trans could imply trans_(lore) instead and catch more posts). But more generally, lore tags are dependent on what the artist intended for a particular piece, and it's theoretically possible for an artist to draw a character with a t-dick who doesn't identify as trans, making the implication put an invalid tag on the post.

In general, nothing should ever imply lore tags except other lore tags.

The reason trans was made into a lore tag is because it's impossible to tag without background knowledge, and therefore breaks this site's tagging philosophy. I feel like some people overlook this and just treat it as a regular tag, under the assumption that by adding "a trans tag", e621 is merely doing what they should have been doing all along, when what's actually happened is that an entire parallel tagging system has been created which does not interact with or supersede the old one in any way.

watsit said:
it's theoretically possible for an artist to draw a character with a t-dick who doesn't identify as trans, making the implication put an invalid tag on the post.

If "t-dick" means "testosterone dick" or "trans dick" then a character with a "t-dick" that isn't trans or otherwise taking testosterone would just have enlarged_clitoris or big_clitoris without a trans_(lore) tag. There's no reason to have "t-dick" as a separate tag; just alias it to enlarged_clitoris.

I don't see a need for a "trans dick" tag. If it looks just like an enlarged_clitoris... just tag the post with enlarged clitoris.
The transition status of a character is often impossible to tell from the image alone.

In my opinion, the following requests should be rejected:

BUR #1280
implication #41143
implication #41144
implication #41145
implication #41146
implication #41147
alias #53458
alias #53459
alias #53461
alias #53462

Then, alias everything away.

alias t-dick -> enlarged_clitoris
alias tdick -> enlarged_clitoris
alias t_dick -> enlarged_clitoris
alias hyper_t-dick -> enlarged_clitoris
alias hyper_tdick -> enlarged_clitoris
alias hyper_t_dick -> enlarged_clitoris

I could use some input on whether to alias hyper_t-dick to hyper_clitoris, or to just enlarged_clitoris.
The hyper_clitoris tagging is not terribly consistent, and the tag itself does not have a clear definition.

bitwolfy said:
I don't see a need for a "trans dick" tag. If it looks just like an enlarged_clitoris... just tag the post with enlarged clitoris.
The transition status of a character is often impossible to tell from the image alone.

In my opinion, the following requests should be rejected:
Then, alias everything away.

alias t-dick -> enlarged_clitoris
alias tdick -> enlarged_clitoris
alias t_dick -> enlarged_clitoris
alias hyper_t-dick -> hyper_clitoris
alias hyper_tdick -> hyper_clitoris
alias hyper_t_dick -> hyper_t_dick

I could use some input on whether to alias hyper_t-dick to hyper_clitoris, or to just enlarged_clitoris.
The hyper_clitoris tagging is not terribly consistent, and the tag itself does not have a clear definition.

I think I would go with enlarged_clitoris… if you compare hyper_clitoris and enlarged_clitoris results, they appear to be fairly different—however, there are quite a few that should have one tag but got the other instead. The fact that the enlarged_clitoris wiki is vague and seems to encapsulate everything hyper_clitoris might be used for doesn’t help.

Usually, however, it seems like enlarged_clitoris is used for a clitoris that seems to have taken on the approximate size and shape of a penile glans. If I’m looking for hyper_clitoris, personally, I would not expect to see that. That tag should probably only be used for regular-looking clitorises that are larger than is biologically possible, but not necessarily taking on the shape of a penis.

bitwolfy said:

alias hyper_t_dick -> hyper_t_dick

I think you goofed that last one.

furrin_gok said:
I think you goofed that last one.

Oops. I did, good catch.

scaliespe said: . . .

Yeah, I think I agree.
Having enlarged_clitoris be defined as "a clitoris that has taken on the approximate size and shape of a penile glans" seems like a good solution, differentiating it from both big_clitoris / hyper_clitoris and pseudo-penis.

bitwolfy said:
Yeah, I think I agree.
Having enlarged_clitoris be defined as "a clitoris that has taken on the approximate size and shape of a penile glans" seems like a good solution, differentiating it from both big_clitoris / hyper_clitoris and pseudo-penis.

Though, with that being said, the name of the tag seems a little vague. It doesn’t help that multiple wiki pages, such as pseudo-penis and erect_clitoris describe enlarged_clitoris as “Anything bigger than a big_clitoris that's not a pseudo-penis,” apparently replacing hyper_clitoris entirely.

It also seems like something that may be easily confused with erect_clitoris, since a clitoral erection is essentially just the natural temporary enlargement of the clitoris during arousal. Even though it’s the same thing that happens in a penis, most people don’t seem to think of it as an “erection.”

Not to mention that enlarged_clitoris, in the sense that I described it, actually involves a change in the structure of the clitoris, not just an increase in size.

Perhaps enlarged_clitoris should be invalidated altogether and replaced with a tag that more accurately describes that situation. Either way… these tags are a mess.

post #1079906

The bulk update request #1280 (forum #316042) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.