Topic: aphrodisiac BUR

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

CrocoGator

Member

The bulk update request #6496 is pending approval.

create implication aphrodisiac_gas (421) -> aphrodisiac (1812)
create implication aphrodisiac_mask (135) -> aphrodisiac (1812)
create implication aphrodisiac_mask (135) -> mask (54277)
create implication aphrodisiac_liquid (158) -> aphrodisiac (1812)
create implication aphrodisiac_breath (81) -> aphrodisiac (1812)
create implication aphrodisiac_breath (81) -> breath (67911)
create implication aphrodisiac_injection (64) -> aphrodisiac (1812)
create implication aphrodisiac_injection (64) -> injection (874)
create implication aphrodisiac_bodily_fluids (61) -> aphrodisiac (1812)
create implication aphrodisiac_bodily_fluids (61) -> bodily_fluids (1581649)
create implication aphrodisiac_potion (51) -> aphrodisiac (1812)
create implication aphrodisiac_potion (51) -> potion (6100)
create implication aphrodisiac_pill (34) -> aphrodisiac (1812)
create implication aphrodisiac_food (19) -> aphrodisiac (1812)
create implication aphrodisiac_food (19) -> food (169078)
create implication aphrodisiac_poison (17) -> aphrodisiac (1812)
create implication aphrodisiac_poison (17) -> poison (809)
create implication aphrodisiac_beverage (18) -> aphrodisiac (1812)
create implication aphrodisiac_beverage (18) -> beverage (71710)

Reason: Implying the most common aphrodisiac_<something> tags to aphrodisiac, and also having them imply the <something> in cases where it's obvious enough that it doesn't require me to think.

Stuff that's excluded:

  • aphrodisiac_liquid -> liquid and aphrodisiac_gas -> gas: What are the liquid and gas tags even for? To me, they seem too vague to be very useful.
  • aphrodisiac_pill -> pill: Not sure if the pill needs to be visible or if it can be in a closed container.

DemonTheDarkHound

Member

Side question: Would an implication from pheromones to aphrodisiac_gas make sense? As far as I can tell the only difference is that pheromones are produced by living beings.

CrocoGator

Member

The bulk update request #9472 is pending approval.

create implication pheromones (1621) -> aphrodisiac_gas (421)

Reason:

demonthedarkhound said:
Side question: Would an implication from pheromones to aphrodisiac_gas make sense? As far as I can tell the only difference is that pheromones are produced by living beings.

Pheromones are gases, but are they aphrodisiacs? Logically, yeah, I think so. They're things that force arousal, which is what aphrodisiac is used for. Checking what taggers seem to think, ~30% of pheromones posts are tagged aphrodisiac, suggesting opinions may be split. Let's put it to a vote.

Updated

DemonTheDarkHound

Member

crocogator said:
The bulk update request #9472 is pending approval.

create implication pheromones (1621) -> aphrodisiac_gas (421)

Reason: Pheromones are gases, but are they aphrodisiacs? Logically, yeah, I think so. They're things that force arousal, which is what aphrodisiac is used for. Checking what taggers seem to think, ~30% of pheromones posts are tagged aphrodisiac, suggesting opinions may be split. Let's put it to a vote.

I have found the answer to my own question: No. Not all pheromones are aphrodisiacs. Hypnotic_gas is also possible (mixes of both, too).
Evidence: post #5170437
So, most pictures with pheromones can also be tagged as aphrodisiac_gas, but due to exceptions an implication would be wrong.