The tag implication #67083 cloacal -> cloaca is pending approval.
Reason: I could not find a specific image recently because it was only tagged with cloacal and not cloaca.
is there a specific reason why cloaca is not implicated by cloacal?
Topic: Tag implication: cloacal -> cloaca
Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions
generally we don't imply the usage/stimulation tags to their body part/orifice because it's possible that it's possible that the action happening is clear but the actual bits aren't visible, but I'm not sure if something would be taggable as cloacal without it being visible...
dba_afish said:
but I'm not sure if something would be taggable as cloacal without it being visible...
those both seem like ambiguous_penetration to me.
Arguably these should not be tagged with cloaca if going by TWYS.
The cloaca wiki even states you should not tag it if it is obscured by pose or another character.
dba_afish said:
those both seem like ambiguous_penetration to me.
The second one is likely not intended to be penetration. It's tagged cloacal_kiss, which implies cloacal. Though, I guess there's ambiguity. The same ambiguity can be found in many other cloacal_kiss posts. Oh, it's also tagged cloacal_penetration. Maybe penetration actually was intended? Uhh, here's another example. Tagging ambiguous_penetration doesn't seem right if penetration wasn't the intent.
post #982787
Updated
dba_afish said:
generally we don't imply the usage/stimulation tags to their body part/orifice because it's possible that it's possible that the action happening is clear but the actual bits aren't visible, but I'm not sure if something would be taggable as cloacal without it being visible...
I think the only exception would be on-model feral animals that naturally have a cloaca, because we wouldn’t assume there to be anything else there unless we can see it. So otherwise ambiguous penetration on a crocodile should probably be cloacal, which also unfortunately makes this implication invalid.