nin10dope said:
What do you think the AIBUR should be? I'm satisfied with simply rejecting this implication

Rejecting the implication without an alternative is definitely not ideal - that leaves the potential mistags of missing after_vore, without solving literally any issue (without an AIBUR, the tag's definition won't and shouldn't change).

I put the alternatives up in a previous post, it's either a simple alias (which leaves the tag as having no other uses, but at least clarifies it in the list), or mass updating to a better name and invalidating disposal (breaks blacklists).

I have been upfront from the beginning on why I don't want this implication to happen

regsmutt said:
What do you even want to happen here? The discussion is so far removed from the implication and seems to be bickering about the name. Nobody cares if it's disposal or aliased post-vore_disposal but a disambiguation is a terrible idea.

Your motivation seems confused. An implication will ensure that disposal images carry a vore-related tag. This makes blacklisting easier and better. A disambiguation makes an implication impossible. This all but guarantees that there will be vore images tagged as disposal missing a vore-related tag. It isn't going to make the vore community use a different word or move to a different website. Sorry.

yea, this honestly benefits vore haters alot more then people who enjoy vore

scth said:
Rejecting the implication without an alternative is definitely not ideal - that leaves the potential mistags of missing after_vore, without solving literally any issue (without an AIBUR, the tag's definition won't and shouldn't change).

I put the alternatives up in a previous post, it's either a simple alias (which leaves the tag as having no other uses, but at least clarifies it in the list), or mass updating to a better name and invalidating disposal (breaks blacklists).

Ideally my thoughts when I read the disposal wiki was to simply tag whatever "waste removal" natural process is happening instead. Be that excretion, vomiting, etc

nin10dope said:
I have been upfront from the beginning on why I don't want this implication to happen

yes because you think its too generic of a term, but thats not going to stop the vore community from using the word, by approving the implication request it ensures you are less likely to run into mistagged vore content, then if you just dont implicate it,

don't implicate it? going to majority used for vore content
implicate it? going to majority used for vore content but this time blacklists are more effective

regsmutt said:
What do you even want to happen here? The discussion is so far removed from the implication and seems to be bickering about the name. Nobody cares if it's disposal or aliased post-vore_disposal but a disambiguation is a terrible idea.

Your motivation seems confused. An implication will ensure that disposal images carry a vore-related tag. This makes blacklisting easier and better. A disambiguation makes an implication impossible. This all but guarantees that there will be vore images tagged as disposal missing a vore-related tag. It isn't going to make the vore community use a different word or move to a different website. Sorry.

This

nin10dope said:
Ideally my thoughts when I read the disposal wiki was to simply tag whatever "waste removal" natural process is happening instead. Be that excretion, vomiting, etc

That would make it impossible to tag this concept and make it imply after_vore or any other vore-related term. That's great if you want to see untagged vore, terrible for anyone blacklisting it.

nin10dope said:
The number of uses have been in consideration since the first time it was brought up. It is simply not strong enough to change the basis and with the tag only having 1k uses on a site that hosts multi-millions of posts, calling it a common community understanding is simply unfounded. As active as this forum has been all day only 16 people have deemed to vote on this let alone interact with it, with the majority dissenting the implication request.

No, looking back it doesn't really look like it's been in consideration, so much as it's been dismissed out of hand. My argument is, 'disposal' being a fairly generic word doesn't really matter if the overwhelming majority of people who use and search for the tag do so in the context of vore. In addition, my assertion that there's a common community understanding is based on the fact that, even in cases where it might be argued to be applicable, practically nobody is trying to use 'disposal' in any context other than vore. And yes, the majority of votes has been dissenting, but at least a few of them seem to be dissenting not on matters of practicality, but principle. There haven't been any arguments about how rejecting the implication would make things easier or better for users.

regsmutt said:
What do you even want to happen here? The discussion is so far removed from the implication and seems to be bickering about the name. Nobody cares if it's disposal or aliased post-vore_disposal but a disambiguation is a terrible idea.

Your motivation seems confused. An implication will ensure that disposal images carry a vore-related tag. This makes blacklisting easier and better. A disambiguation makes an implication impossible. This all but guarantees that there will be vore images tagged as disposal missing a vore-related tag. It isn't going to make the vore community use a different word or move to a different website. Sorry.

And here I agree; the implication means that people who have vore tags blacklisted will not see vore-related content if they happen to search for 'disposal'. This is a positive, because it means that people who don't want to see a thing will not see it. It means people who just browse posts will not see vore-related material if they have it blacklisted. The only downside is that a tiny handful of people who might use 'disposal' for throwing something in the trash will technically mistag their image with vore tags. But again, that's less than 20 posts so far that would have been mistagged.

doesnotexist said:
No, looking back it doesn't really look like it's been in consideration, so much as it's been dismissed out of hand.

Not agreeing with you doesn't mean it's not been considered. We just don't find the argument very compelling given our counter-arguments.

doesnotexist said:
My argument is, 'disposal' being a fairly generic word doesn't really matter if the overwhelming majority of people who use and search for the tag do so in the context of vore.

And our argument is that the majority of people use and search for it in the context of vore is because it's had a wiki page telling people not to use it for non-vore, not because it's an inherently vore-specific term. Like you're telling people "don't go there", and after some time someone comes along and says "we should be able to go there", and you say "you don't need to go there because you haven't been there".

Especially when some people who haven't read the wiki have tagged it for non-vore situations, indicating there are people using a valid non-vore interpretation. Just because one use of the word is the most popular doesn't invalidate other meanings and uses. Otherwise we'd never disambiguate anything and just have a tag be used for its most popular meaning regardless of its other possible meanings. The krystal tag, for example, was by far most widely used for the Star Fox character, and was used for her for years. Until someone spoke up and pointed out that there are other characters with the name and the correct thing to do is disambiguate it. People argued much like this, that the number of people using the 'krystal' tag for other characters is low, and it was ultimately decided to disambiguate the tag and put the Star Fox character under krystal_(star_fox).

doesnotexist said:
There haven't been any arguments about how rejecting the implication would make things easier or better for users.

The argument is that the tag should be given a clearer name, and that clearer name can do this implication. Disposal should either be for the general concept of disposing of things (which may include but not be limited to vore-specific activities), or be invalidated/disambiguated with a wiki directing people to more appropriate tags for what it could mean; in both cases, this implication would not be correct.

watsit said:
Not agreeing with you doesn't mean it's not been considered. We just don't find the argument very compelling given our counter-arguments.

And our argument is that the majority of people use and search for it in the context of vore is because it's had a wiki page telling people not to use it for non-vore, not because it's an inherently vore-specific term. Like you're telling people "don't go there", and after some time someone comes along and says "we should be able to go there", and you say "you don't need to go there because you haven't been there".

That is demonstrably untrue. The tag was first used twelve years ago and continued to be used exclusively for vore until the wiki was made (by me) in 2017.

This is not a case of a vague or unused tag getting a specific wiki that later changes how it is used. This was a small but established tag with four years of completely consistent use getting that use described. There is zero sense behind disambiguation.

watsit said:
The krystal tag, for example, was by far most widely used for the Star Fox character, and was used for her for years. Until someone spoke up and pointed out that there are other characters with the name and the correct thing to do is disambiguate it. People argued much like this, that the number of people using the 'krystal' tag for other characters is low, and it was ultimately decided to disambiguate the tag and put the Star Fox character under krystal_(star_fox).

what about mario and luigi, though?

dba_afish said:
what about mario and luigi, though?

oh wow.... i never realized those were like that since i dont look at mario stuff like ever.

mario and luigi are very common Italian names O.o

dba_afish said:
what about mario and luigi, though?

If you wanna be the pioneer for those disambig's, go right ahead lol :P

watsit said:
Not agreeing with you doesn't mean it's not been considered. We just don't find the argument very compelling given our counter-arguments.

And our argument is that the majority of people use and search for it in the context of vore is because it's had a wiki page telling people not to use it for non-vore, not because it's an inherently vore-specific term. Like you're telling people "don't go there", and after some time someone comes along and says "we should be able to go there", and you say "you don't need to go there because you haven't been there".

Especially when some people who haven't read the wiki have tagged it for non-vore situations, indicating there are people using a valid non-vore interpretation. Just because one use of the word is the most popular doesn't invalidate other meanings and uses. Otherwise we'd never disambiguate anything and just have a tag be used for its most popular meaning regardless of its other possible meanings. The krystal tag, for example, was by far most widely used for the Star Fox character, and was used for her for years. Until someone spoke up and pointed out that there are other characters with the name and the correct thing to do is disambiguate it. People argued much like this, that the number of people using the 'krystal' tag for other characters is low, and it was ultimately decided to disambiguate the tag and put the Star Fox character under krystal_(star_fox).

And I countered that the use of 'disposal' as a tag that's used exclusively for vore, outside of an extreme minority of posts, is not a phenomenon that's exclusive to e6, pulling data from Itaku, but my points to this end have thus far been entirely overlooked or ignored. Not to mention, as regsmutt says, the argument of "people aren't using it this way because the wiki says not to" is a poor argument from the start.

The argument is that the tag should be given a clearer name, and that clearer name can do this implication. Disposal should either be for the general concept of disposing of things (which may include but not be limited to vore-specific activities), or be invalidated/disambiguated with a wiki directing people to more appropriate tags for what it could mean; in both cases, this implication would not be correct.

If a clearer, less ambiguous term is what ultimately happens, then fair enough. But if 'disposal' becomes the generic concept of throwing things away, based on the use of the tag prior to the wiki entry, and its use in other places, there's going to be a tag that's 99% vore-related disposal and 1% other things. You can argue that there would be more 'generic disposal' if the wiki were changed, but I honestly find it hard to believe, because of the prevalence of the term as referring to vore in other spaces.

It's about what the word means to the average user, not the wiki, not taggers who know how fetishes like getting tagged.

regsmutt said:
That is demonstrably untrue. The tag was first used twelve years ago and continued to be used exclusively for vore until the wiki was made (by me) in 2017.

Incorrect, this post from 10 years ago was tagged disposal, until it was removed by a now-deleted user, before you made the wiki. Should also be noted that the site in the past hadn't been as popular as it is now, and we didn't even have an Invalid category prior to e6ng. Ambiguous tags were unceremoniously aliased to invalid_tag, with no feedback about what tags you used were bad and what they should be replaced with, giving more leeway on potentially ambiguous terms as there weren't good options. Nowadays there is a larger focus on non-porn/fetish material, more attempt to be consistent with how to handle tags (especially ambiguous ones), more people than ever using the site, and we have better ways to inform and guide people to correct tags, So something having been more true in the past for this site doesn't mean it's still as true today. Much like krystal, things have changed with how we handle certain tags. That there were almost no non-vore uses in those original years, while there are now at least close to a couple dozen, indicates a growing trend; either more people being confused, or a growing desire to use it for non-vore stuff. In either case, a disambiguation can help get out in front of it, on top of being what we'd do in any other similar situation of a word with more general common meanings.

dba_afish said:
what about mario and luigi, though?

Good question. I seem to recall someone having mentioned them about this, but I don't remember what the response was. I don't know if anyone's attempted to make a BUR to give them suffixes, but I'd support it.

The bulk update request #11623 is pending approval.

create implication disposal (1702) -> after_vore (7693) # duplicate of implication #67834
create implication bone_disposal (376) -> disposal (1702)
create implication cum_disposal (299) -> disposal (1702)
create implication oral_bone_disposal (179) -> disposal (1702)
create implication oral_bone_disposal (179) -> bone_disposal (376)
create alias burping_up_bones (207) -> oral_bone_disposal (179)
create implication urine_disposal (8) -> disposal (1702)
create implication milk_disposal (20) -> disposal (1702)
create implication vaginal_fluid_disposal (40) -> disposal (1702)
create implication scat_disposal (138) -> disposal (1702)

Reason: Since some people think Disposal is too generic, this makes it unambiguous.

nin10dope said:
It's about what the word means to the average user, not the wiki, not taggers who know how fetishes like getting tagged.

Itaku's own tag wiki, approved by the admin who doesn't seem to do vore things, uses disposal to refer exclusively to vore-related content, and it's used that way throughout the site, with a multi-page comic and a pic with some alts as the only outliers.
Furbooru defines 'disposal' as relating to vore.
F-list defines 'disposal' as relating to vore.
The number of people who have tagged 'disposal' on this very site as something other than vore-related is around 1% of total images with the tag.
The average furry, if they don't already know, is going to find out very quickly that 'disposal' in these spaces is a term connected to vore. e6 bucking the trend is only going to create confusion. Sure, they don't have to follow these other sides, but it makes it easier to find things if definitions are harmonised.

Beyond which, who is actually going to be searching 'disposal' with the intent to find somebody throwing something in a bin? In fetish terms, it's going to be even more niche than vore. And this clearly hasn't been an issue prior to this point, because nobody had requested that the wiki page be changed, or for aliasing that would force the tag to be used in other ways.

gyro said:
The bulk update request #11623 is pending approval.

create implication disposal (1702) -> after_vore (7693) # duplicate of implication #67834
create implication bone_disposal (376) -> disposal (1702)
create implication cum_disposal (299) -> disposal (1702)
create implication oral_bone_disposal (179) -> disposal (1702)
create implication oral_bone_disposal (179) -> bone_disposal (376)
create alias burping_up_bones (207) -> oral_bone_disposal (179)
create implication urine_disposal (8) -> disposal (1702)
create implication milk_disposal (20) -> disposal (1702)
create implication vaginal_fluid_disposal (40) -> disposal (1702)
create implication scat_disposal (138) -> disposal (1702)

Reason: Since some people think Disposal is too generic, this makes it unambiguous.

Change the alias to update so all of the appropriate art will move over to it

doesnotexist said:
Itaku's own tag wiki, approved by the admin who doesn't seem to do vore things, uses disposal to refer exclusively to vore-related content, and it's used that way throughout the site, with a multi-page comic and a pic with some alts as the only outliers.
Furbooru defines 'disposal' as relating to vore.
F-list defines 'disposal' as relating to vore.
The number of people who have tagged 'disposal' on this very site as something other than vore-related is around 1% of total images with the tag.
The average furry, if they don't already know, is going to find out very quickly that 'disposal' in these spaces is a term connected to vore. e6 bucking the trend is only going to create confusion. Sure, they don't have to follow these other sides, but it makes it easier to find things if definitions are harmonised.

Beyond which, who is actually going to be searching 'disposal' with the intent to find somebody throwing something in a bin? In fetish terms, it's going to be even more niche than vore. And this clearly hasn't been an issue prior to this point, because nobody had requested that the wiki page be changed, or for aliasing that would force the tag to be used in other ways.

These are all anecdotal and focused on fetish content i.e. porn
This is not a porn site, people actually like searching for safe and questionable rated content

nin10dope said:
These are all anecdotal and focused on fetish content i.e. porn
This is not a porn site, people actually like searching for safe and questionable rated content

Neither furbooru or itaku is any more a porn site than e6, probably less. Additionally e6 is really seen as a porn site. Also most vore is going to be questionable. Also anecdotal means that there's no evidence to support the claim. It would mean stories about this person or that person. Your arguments have mostly been anecdotal tbh.

gyro said:
mass update disposal -> disposal_(vore)
create alias disposal (1631) -> disposal_(vore) (0) # has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through BUR
create implication disposal (1631) -> after_vore (7650) # duplicate of implication #67834

The mass update is redundant with the alias (an alias will update existing posts). In this case, the mass update should stay, and a second BUR can alias disposal to disposal_(disambiguation), otherwise there's little benefit to a change if disposal will continue to be a tag for vore only anyway.

And you can't have disposal imply a tag and be aliased to a tag at the same time. You'd need to have disposal_(vore) imply after_vore instead.

gyro said:
No you

I've been dancing around saying it but part of my foundation has been the dictionary lol

gyro said:
The bulk update request #11623 is pending approval.

create implication disposal (1702) -> after_vore (7693) # duplicate of implication #67834
create implication bone_disposal (376) -> disposal (1702)
create implication cum_disposal (299) -> disposal (1702)
create implication oral_bone_disposal (179) -> disposal (1702)
create implication oral_bone_disposal (179) -> bone_disposal (376)
create alias burping_up_bones (207) -> oral_bone_disposal (179)
create implication urine_disposal (8) -> disposal (1702)
create implication milk_disposal (20) -> disposal (1702)
create implication vaginal_fluid_disposal (40) -> disposal (1702)
create implication scat_disposal (138) -> disposal (1702)

Reason: Since some people think Disposal is too generic, this makes it unambiguous.

Why did you silently change this after I gave it a thumbs up?

nin10dope said:
These are all anecdotal and focused on fetish content i.e. porn
This is not a porn site, people actually like searching for safe and questionable rated content

Given that this specific argument is about what the average furry is going to expect 'disposal' to mean, I don't think the definitions used in other furry spaces can really be taken as 'anecdotal'. Short of trying to put out a mass survey, I'm not sure what more rigorous evidence you can expect.

And e621 is as much a porn site as Furbooru and Itaku are. All three sites are used to look up porn, fetish material, and safe works.

nin10dope said:
Why did you silently change this after I gave it a thumbs up?

I was adding more to this as I realized that there was more that probably should be added if we're doing a BUR

I will not be doing a disposal_(disambiguous) page because that will ONLY result in bad tagging.

watsit said:
The mass update is redundant with the alias (an alias will update existing posts). In this case, the mass update should stay, and a second BUR can alias disposal to disposal_(disambiguation), otherwise there's little benefit to a change if disposal will continue to be a tag for vore only anyway.

And you can't have disposal imply a tag and be aliased to a tag at the same time. You'd need to have disposal_(vore) imply after_vore instead.

If the argument is 'this tag will confuse people' then it will make it clear. Creating a 'disambiguation' tag will be useless to everyone, make the site worse overall and just cause problems.

nin10dope said:
It's about what the word means to the average user, not the wiki, not taggers who know how fetishes like getting tagged.

This is far from universally true. There are many, many common words that are not tagged as what it means to the 'average' user. The dictionary-definition may have a more common synonym, or else be something that is straight-up not drawn often or at all. Docking is an example of both- to the 'average' person this term absolutely does not have the same definition as the tag and, even if told it was a sex term, would likely not guess what it was. But there are not enough images that involve tying a ship to a dock or plugging in a USB to justify invalidating it.

watsit said:
Incorrect, this post from 10 years ago was tagged disposal, until it was removed by a now-deleted user, before you made the wiki. Should also be noted that the site in the past hadn't been as popular as it is now, and we didn't even have an Invalid category prior to e6ng. Ambiguous tags were unceremoniously aliased to invalid_tag, with no feedback about what tags you used were bad and what they should be replaced with, giving more leeway on potentially ambiguous terms as there weren't good options. Nowadays there is a larger focus on non-porn/fetish material, more attempt to be consistent with how to handle tags (especially ambiguous ones), more people than ever using the site, and we have better ways to inform and guide people to correct tags, So something having been more true in the past for this site doesn't mean it's still as true today. Much like krystal, things have changed with how we handle certain tags. That there were almost no non-vore uses in those original years, while there are now at least close to a couple dozen, indicates a growing trend; either more people being confused, or a growing desire to use it for non-vore stuff. In either case, a disambiguation can help get out in front of it, on top of being what we'd do in any other similar situation of a word with more general common meanings.

Congratulations on finding one misuse prior to the wiki I guess? Really not sure what your point is beyond moving the goalposts. It's just not an ambiguous tag to anybody using it. People drawing trash disposal are either not posting here or are using a different tag.

gyro said:
The bulk update request #11623 is pending approval.

create implication disposal (1702) -> after_vore (7693) # duplicate of implication #67834
create implication bone_disposal (376) -> disposal (1702)
create implication cum_disposal (299) -> disposal (1702)
create implication oral_bone_disposal (179) -> disposal (1702)
create implication oral_bone_disposal (179) -> bone_disposal (376)
create alias burping_up_bones (207) -> oral_bone_disposal (179)
create implication urine_disposal (8) -> disposal (1702)
create implication milk_disposal (20) -> disposal (1702)
create implication vaginal_fluid_disposal (40) -> disposal (1702)
create implication scat_disposal (138) -> disposal (1702)

Reason: Since some people think Disposal is too generic, this makes it unambiguous.

You don't need the update.

regsmutt said:
You don't need the update.

Alright fixed, havnt done one of these in ages tbh

Yeah, either just alias, or just update. Both doesn't do anything.
Just update: Breaks blacklists, but allows people who search for the tag innocently or accidentally tag it to not just be using the vore tag.
Alias: Keeps blacklists working, doesn't really solve any of the problems.
Ah, you fixed it to an alias. That's fine, it at least makes it show up better in the lists.

manitka said:
oh wow.... i never realized those were like that since i dont look at mario stuff like ever.

mario and luigi are very common Italian names O.o

to be fair if you type Mario into Wikipedia the character in question is the one that shows up, no redirect even, the page is just [[mario]] straight up, same for Bowser. I feel like if your character has that kinda popularity there's not that much to worry about.

gyro said:
Creating a 'disambiguation' tag will be useless to everyone

Except people who see something being disposed of, tag disposal, and not understand why it got changed to disposal_(vore) and implicated a bunch of vore tags on their post that don't belong, and then have to look at a vore tag wiki (which can be disturbing to people) to figure out what to do for a common non-vore thing. Or just not tag it if they know the disposal tag is for vore and don't know the proper tag. A disambiguation tag is the typical way this kind of thing is handled, making it clear that the term can be ambiguous and a nice general place to look for possible alternative tags. I don't see why this should get special treatment.

regsmutt said:
Congratulations on finding one misuse prior to the wiki I guess? Really not sure what your point is beyond moving the goalposts. It's just not an ambiguous tag to anybody using it. People drawing trash disposal are either not posting here or are using a different tag.

Not moving the goalpost. We've said and showed multiple examples of it being used for non-vore stuff, at least twice this year with one in the last three months, and it's just patently incorrect to say it was exclusively used for vore prior to the wiki being made in 2017.

watsit said:
Not moving the goalpost. We've said and showed multiple examples of it being used for non-vore stuff, at least twice this year with one in the last three months, and it's just patently incorrect to say it was exclusively used for vore prior to the wiki being made in 2017.

Okay so I overlooked a single image and should have said "almost exclusively with one single exception that was untagged the same year it was posted." Cool. My point still stands that it was an established tag with extremely consistent use.

But I guess we should start knocking out other generic words. People innocently looking for 'knot' might find a wiki page detailing animal genitalia extremely disturbing.

watsit said:
Except people who see something being disposed of, tag disposal, and not understand why it got changed to disposal_(vore) and implicated a bunch of vore tags on their post that don't belong, and then have to look at a vore tag wiki (which can be disturbing to people) to figure out what to do for a common non-vore thing. Or just not tag it if they know the disposal tag is for vore and don't know the proper tag. A disambiguation tag is the typical way this kind of thing is handled, making it clear that the term can be ambiguous and a nice general place to look for possible alternative tags. I don't see why this should get special treatment.

Not moving the goalpost. We've said and showed multiple examples of it being used for non-vore stuff, at least twice this year with one in the last three months, and it's just patently incorrect to say it was exclusively used for vore prior to the wiki being made in 2017.

You of all people should know, when you tag something as something that's aliased, the tag viewer tells you that its being changed at the time of placing the tag.

gyro said:
You of all people should know, when you tag something as something that's implicated, the tag viewer tells you that its being changed at the time of placing the tag.

aliased, not implied.

(also, assuming the user dosn't have the setting disabled)

gyro said:
I will not be doing a disposal_(disambiguous) page because that will ONLY result in bad tagging.

Just bad faith and hyperbolic

regsmutt said:
But I guess we should start knocking out other generic words. People innocently looking for 'knot' might find a wiki page detailing animal genitalia extremely disturbing.

Except that knot has clear ties (pun unintended) to the furry community as very commonly depicted animal anatomy. Like I said before, the primary thing that ties furries together is animal people, which this site expressly caters to, so animal-related terminology will naturally be given precedence. Disposal as a vore term, in contrast, is not furry relevant aside from the fact that some furries are also in the vore community. Vore itself is not inherently furry-related, and this site doesn't cater to vore any more or less than anything else furries may be into. That would be like saying futanari should be a valid tag because it's common in hentai, and many furries are also into Japanese-style porn.

nin10dope said:
Just bad faith and hyperbolic

inflation Inflation_fetish

Yep, historical precedent says it will go exactly fine.

dba_afish said:
aliased, not implied.

(also, assuming the user dosn't have the setting disabled)

also, if they have the autocomplete enabled disposal_(vore) would show up first in the menu regardless of what disposal itself has been aliased to.

nin10dope said:
Just bad faith and hyperbolic

Your whole presence on this thread has been bad faith, as you said in the beginning that you hate vore, and it makes you ill to see it. And we're here trying to make it less like that it slips past your filters.

gyro said:
You of all people should know, when you tag something as something that's aliased, the tag viewer tells you that its being changed at the time of placing the tag.

The autocomplete will show it, yes. As long as you're typing slow enough for it to pop up and pay attention to what it shows. Not completely invisible, but not the best way to show something's wrong with the tag you're trying to use, nor indicate what you probably should use instead. If you don't see the autocomplete, and don't check over the tags on the posted image to see it having vore related tags, it's very easy to miss and leave the post with multiple mistags. A disambiguation, in contrast, is purposely designed to stand out and draw attention to a tag being bad, and gives a neutral place to check for alternate tags for what you should tag instead. If you're aliasing a potentially ambiguous tag to a specific meaning of a term, that's less helpful. If a tag needs clarity, as indicated by such an alias, that's the whole point of disambiguation tags. Much like how krystal didn't get aliased to krystal_(star_fox) with the latter's wiki explaining other possible krystals, despite it meaning that the vast majority of the time, but instead was aliased to krystal_(disambiguation) and people changed over to krystal_(star_fox) as needed. Ever since disambiguation tags have been introduced, this is how potentially ambiguous tags have been handled, and I don't see a reason to make an exception here.

gyro said:
Wah, as you said in the beginning that you hate vore, and it makes you ill to see it. And we're here trying to make it less like that it slips past your filters.

No, don't pretend like that's your goal. Vore next-to never slips past my filters because it's a punishable offense to not tag it.

nin10dope said:
No, don't pretend like that's your goal. Vore next-to never slips past my filters because it's a punishable offense to not tag it.

What do you think my goal is then? Its literally just to get an alias on an existing tag.

watsit said:
The autocomplete will show it, yes. As long as you're typing slow enough for it to pop up and pay attention to what it shows. Not completely invisible, but not the best way to show something's wrong with the tag you're trying to use, nor indicate what you probably should use instead. If you don't see the autocomplete, and don't check over the tags on the posted image to see it having vore related tags, it's very easy to miss and leave the post with multiple mistags. A disambiguation, in contrast, is purposely designed to stand out and draw attention to a tag being bad, and gives a neutral place to check for alternate tags for what you should tag instead. If you're aliasing a potentially ambiguous tag to a specific meaning of a term, that's less helpful. If a tag needs clarity, as indicated by such an alias, that's the whole point of disambiguation tags. Much like how krystal didn't get aliased to krystal_(star_fox) with the latter's wiki explaining other possible krystals, despite it meaning that the vast majority of the time, but instead was aliased to krystal_(disambiguation) and people changed over to krystal_(star_fox) as needed. Ever since disambiguation tags have been introduced, this is how potentially ambiguous tags have been handled, and I don't see a reason to make an exception here.

It doesnt need an alias. We were just throwing you a bone because you thought it was important to make it clear. But if the only reason to have an alias is because it requires a disambiguation tag, then I guess I should remove it from teh BuR.

nin10dope said:
No, don't pretend like that's your goal. Vore next-to never slips past my filters because it's a punishable offense to not tag it.

It isn't actually, unless you're a serial lazy tagger. You forget once or twice? You're fine. The reason it is usually tagged is that a it's obvious and b there's a good net of implications to make sure that it'll get added. Vore is not on the default blacklist. You are severely over estimating how 'contentious' it is.

Just so people know, since Nindope is trying to be funny, they're attempting to shortcircuit this whole disussion by creating a new one:

https://e621.net/forum_topics/58075?page=1#forum_post_457961

gyro said:
It doesnt need an alias. We were just throwing you a bone because you thought it was important to make it clear. But if the only reason to have an alias is because it requires a disambiguation tag, then I guess I should remove it from teh BuR.

As with many other alias requests that just add a suffix to a generic word or name, they end up rejected since a suffix isn't needed for an unambiguous tag, and a tag that needs a suffix would be ambiguous enough to not be aliased to a specific use. There's almost never a reason to alias a tag to a suffixed one, outside of disambiguation.

watsit said:
As with many other alias requests that just add a suffix to a generic word or name, they end up rejected since a suffix isn't needed for an unambiguous tag, and a tag that needs a suffix would be ambiguous enough to not be aliased to a specific use. There's almost never a reason to alias a tag to a suffixed one, outside of disambiguation.

Then I guess its not necessary.

watsit said:
The krystal tag, for example, was by far most widely used for the Star Fox character, and was used for her for years. Until someone spoke up and pointed out that there are other characters with the name and the correct thing to do is disambiguate it. People argued much like this, that the number of people using the 'krystal' tag for other characters is low, and it was ultimately decided to disambiguate the tag and put the Star Fox character under krystal_(star_fox).

Most characters get a franchise tag attached to them on e6, even when they are at present the only one. Thats not a standard that's the case for general tags.

gyro said:
Most characters get a franchise tag attached to them on e6, even when they are at present the only one. Thats not a standard that's the case for general tags.

I say this as someone who agrees with you- I think you should stop replying. You have one person whose schtick is being contrarian and another who just hates anything to do with vore.

regsmutt said:
I say this as someone who agrees with you- I think you should stop replying. You have one person whose schtick is being contrarian and another who just hates anything to do with vore.

I suppose so. It just rankles my feathers a bit for people to be trying to make things worse for other people for the purposes of making things worse for other people. Took a lot of effort to get them to update the Scat tag to something sensible previously.

nin10dope said:
No, don't pretend like that's your goal. Vore next-to never slips past my filters because it's a punishable offense to not tag it.

that is our goal, what it is yours? make it easier for vore to slip by blacklists so that people can angry over it and launch a massive campaign to get vore banned?

oh no a few hundred people misunderstood solo_focus tag lets make it invalid cause clearly its confusing

nin10dope said:
These are all anecdotal and focused on fetish content i.e. porn
This is not a porn site, people actually like searching for safe and questionable rated content

Those are valid examples to show what the 'common' understanding of "Disposal" is on furry related websites.

regsmutt said:
I say this as someone who agrees with you- I think you should stop replying. You have one person whose schtick is being contrarian and another who just hates anything to do with vore.

Let's be honest, they both just hate vore. The contrarian one has also said they think a wiki page about vore is "disturbing".

Even ignoring those two, though, I'm surprised at the number of downvotes this is getting. The implication just sounds like common sense to me, and I can't believe it's not the case already. If anything, the most "confusing" part of it is the fact that post-vore is apparently called "after vore" on this site, but that's more of a personal grievance.

regsmutt said:
You have one person whose schtick is being contrarian[...]

that is a really fucking uncharitable stance, my dude. I don't think there's any evidence that is at all accurate to how Watsit operates.

dba_afish said:
that is a really fucking uncharitable stance, my dude. I don't think there's any evidence that is at all accurate to how Watsit operates.

Yeah these last few replies have kind of devolved into "They hate vore, so their reservations are irrelevant"

nin10dope said:
Yeah these last few replies have kind of devolved into "They hate vore, so their reservations are irrelevant"

you have yet to give us an actual reason why it shouldnt be implicated, you keep pointing out "20 posts that were mistags" as if that matters if it was 500 posts then sure, but most tags have alot more mistags then that, your whole argument is "well people only use it for vore cause the wiki" thats like saying people only use knots to refer to bulbus structures on a cock cause the wiki

funkwolfie said:
you have yet to give us an actual reason why it shouldnt be implicated, you keep pointing out "20 posts that were mistags" as if that matters if it was 500 posts then sure, but most tags have alot more mistags then that, your whole argument is "well people only use it for vore cause the wiki" thats like saying people only use knots to refer to bulbus structures on a cock cause the wiki

I did give a reason at the very beginning of this topic, don't lie.
I was not pointing out "20 posts that were mistags", don't misrepresent me.
"well people only use it for vore cause the wiki" is not my whole argument, see above.

nin10dope said:
I did give a reason at the very beginning of this topic, don't lie.
I was not pointing out "20 posts that were mistags", don't misrepresent me.
"well people only use it for vore cause the wiki" is not my whole argument, see above.

sorry for first reason was "its a generic word" even tho its been a wiki page for like 8 years with very little mistags, so that is not an actual valid reason
2nd: while you in fact did not mention the 20 you were heavily implying since it is a generic word there would be confusion
3rd: yes it is, that what it boils down to

funkwolfie said:
sorry for first reason was "its a generic word" even tho its been a wiki page for like 8 years with very little mistags, so that is not an actual valid reason
2nd: while you in fact did not mention the 20 you were heavily implying since it is a generic word there would be confusion
3rd: yes it is, that what it boils down to

You can choose not to listen to preserve your narrative, but the first reason is the most valid out of any of them.

nin10dope said:
You can choose not to listen to preserve your narrative, but the first reason is the most valid out of any of them.

I am listening you are not, there are plenty of furry terms that are generic that no one cares, knot can mean many things, this implication request would help blacklist anysort of vore its literally a net positive for you. if you make disposal to mean anything for e6 youll have a mix of vore most and a mix of non vore post on the same tags which would make blacklisting a nightmare

funkwolfie said:
I am listening you are not, there are plenty of furry terms that are generic that no one cares, knot can mean many things, this implication request would help blacklist anysort of vore its literally a net positive for you. if you make disposal to mean anything for e6 youll have a mix of vore most and a mix of non vore post on the same tags which would make blacklisting a nightmare

Knot vs disposal is not a valid comparison, as already explained.
And the fortune-telling about how unspeakably bad things are guaranteed to become from the disambig is a fallacy and not a real argument.

nin10dope said:
Knot vs disposal is not a valid comparison, as already explained.
And the fortune-telling about how unspeakably bad things are guaranteed to become from the disambig is a fallacy and not a real argument.

it is valid

and right back at you, assuming the only reason there isnt more mistagged disposal post is that people are scared off is speculation not a valid argument

watsit said:
Not agreeing with you doesn't mean it's not been considered. We just don't find the argument very compelling given our counter-arguments.

And our argument is that the majority of people use and search for it in the context of vore is because it's had a wiki page telling people not to use it for non-vore, not because it's an inherently vore-specific term. Like you're telling people "don't go there", and after some time someone comes along and says "we should be able to go there", and you say "you don't need to go there because you haven't been there".
...

cut for brevity
referring to this post which whasit talks about y'alls argument

veegee said:
Let's be honest, they both just hate vore. The contrarian one has also said they think a wiki page about vore is "disturbing".

To be clear, I didn't say I find it disturbing, nor did I say I hate it. I don't even find vore disturbing. It's not my thing, but I can enjoy some forms of it and I'm perfectly capable of just not looking at it when I don't want to. However, I do recognize that vore is a contentious fetish, that there are people who do find it disturbing and wouldn't appreciate having to look at the wiki page for something vore-related (a particularly extreme act even within vore, too; the digestion/death of another, often paired with feces) to figure out what to use for a generic non-vore act.

watsit said:
To be clear, I didn't say I find it disturbing, nor did I say I hate it. I don't even find vore disturbing. It's not my thing, but I can enjoy some forms of it and I'm perfectly capable of just not looking at it when I don't want to. However, I do recognize that vore is a contentious fetish, that there are people who do find it disturbing and wouldn't appreciate having to look at the wiki page for something vore-related (a particularly extreme act even within vore, too; the digestion/death of another, often paired with feces) to figure out what to use for a generic non-vore act.

you are acting like the wiki goes into graphic rp, it really doesnt, a person could just read see oh this is vore and blacklist it, easy

funkwolfie said:
assuming the only reason there isnt more mistagged disposal post is that people are scared off is speculation not a valid argument

I never made that argument, once again you're either lying or confusing me with someone else.

funkwolfie said:
it is valid

and right back at you

And you're unironically devolved into basically saying "No you"

nin10dope said:
I never made that argument, once again you're either lying or confusing me with someone else.

And you're unironically devolved into basically saying "No you"

im pointing out your hypocrisy mate,

funkwolfie said:
im pointing out your hypocrisy mate,

Your perceived* hypocrisy
You can't even keep it straight about who said what and are now bringing your unhappiness to other Topics to spread how upset you are with the changes. Just relax and take a break.

nin10dope said:
Your perceived* hypocrisy
You can't even keep it straight about who said what and are now bringing your unhappiness to other Topics to spread how upset you are with the changes. Just relax and take a break.

im am relaxed mate, and im lumping you to together cause Whatsit said "our idea" so I assumed you had the same ideas, and it is actually hypocrisy mate,
you: "that not valid cause that assuming"
also you: "this is okay even though Im just assuming"

You're talking gibberish now

nin10dope said:
You're talking gibberish now

no Im speaking in English. a language roughly 5.1% of the world speaks,

nin10dope said:
Yeah these last few replies have kind of devolved into "They hate vore, so their reservations are irrelevant"

To be clear, I'm not saying to ignore your ridiculous "reservations" because of your opinions on vore, but because your admitted bias and extreme stubbornness make it hard to believe that anything you've been saying has been in good faith. At some point, you have to consider that you're not being as objective as you think you are, and that maybe you don't like the idea of anything being associated with a fetish you find so repulsive and it's coloring your perspective on this. (Though if Watsit doesn't have the same repulsion then I don't know what their deal is, maybe regsmutt was right about them being a contrarian.) You've made it abundantly clear that nothing anyone says will change your mind, and nothing you've said hasn't already been debunked, so there's no point in continuing to argue in circles like this.