The bulk update request #6728 is pending approval.

Reason: No more x_verbing_y, x_verbing and y_verbed are much much cleaner. topic #41272 was rejected so this does seem to be the official position

The bulk update request #6729 is pending approval.

Reason: Part 2

The bulk update request #6730 is pending approval.

create alias herm_fingering_female (9) -> herm_fingering (5)
create alias herm_fingering_gynomorph (0) -> herm_fingering (5)
create alias herm_fingering_andromorph (0) -> herm_fingering (5)
create alias herm_fingering_herm (0) -> herm_fingering (5)
create alias herm_fingering_maleherm (0) -> herm_fingering (5)

Reason: Part 3

hmm, I-- hmm...

I don't know where I stand on these... even if we keep the <noun>_fingering tags, and I'm not even 100% sure if we should do that, maybe these ought to be aliased to fingering_partner instead, to me that seems like it'd be the closest adjacent tag.

but also... ech, I dunno.

agreed on sipothac's part, it's just more reliable to search by gender/form on gender/form and fingering partner at this point.
if girly/girly is aliased to girly which is a mix of masc/masc and girly, then i don't know the point of the genders/forms fingering tags. i've had more points about needlessness of adding more verbs for x_verbing_y.

I feel like aliasing X_fingering_Y to Y_fingered would be better: the Y character has the hole that's being fingered, making them more the sexual focus... Maybe. Though I suppose the way the tags are aliased away isn't terribly important, as long as they get aliased away.

sipothac said:
hmm, I-- hmm...

I don't know where I stand on these... even if we keep the <noun>_fingering tags, and I'm not even 100% sure if we should do that, maybe these ought to be aliased to fingering_partner instead, to me that seems like it'd be the closest adjacent tag.

but also... ech, I dunno.

snake-girl said:
agreed on sipothac's part, it's just more reliable to search by gender/form on gender/form and fingering partner at this point.
if girly/girly is aliased to girly which is a mix of masc/masc and girly, then i don't know the point of the genders/forms fingering tags. i've had more points about needlessness of adding more verbs for x_verbing_y.

I'd support scrapping x_verbing and y_verbed too honestly, and aliasing everything to fingering_partner

cloudpie said:
I'd support scrapping x_verbing and y_verbed too honestly, and aliasing everything to fingering_partner

I'm, like, really torn. mostly because I'm just now realizing that I've kind of created the perfect counter-argument for my stance on x/p/y. like, those could all just be aliased to penetrating_partner, and the only reason I didn't think of that was because that tag does not currently exist.

so, like, in my brain I can't logically justify supporting x/p/y and not supporting *_fingering_*...

I'm on the precipice, here, and I need to really work out what my values are...

Think of x_penetrating_y as being grandfathered in. Long-standing tags with many implications and aliases in place. With it's existence also showing that it's unsustainable to have combo tags for every x_<verbing>_y action characters can do to each other, which are much less commonly used and easier to do away with. The standalone x_<verbing> and y_<verbed> tags are still useful and less explosive in count though, since it can be important to viewers what is doing the <verbing> and what is having the <verbed> done to them.