The bulk update request #419 is active.

remove alias knotted_penis (13964) -> knot (216520)
remove alias knotted_cock (0) -> knot (216520)
remove implication knotted_equine_penis (3471) -> knot (216520)
remove implication knotted_humanoid_penis (2891) -> knot (216520)
remove implication knotted_feline_penis (260) -> knot (216520)

Reason: Part 1 of Knots BUR, as proposed on topic #27828.

Reintroduction of knotted_penis as an umbrella tag for all knotted penis types (i.e. knotted_canine_penis (new tag), knotted_equine_penis, etc) and implication of said penis types to knotted_penis instead.

Knot to be used specifically as an 'appearance' tag while knotting to be used specifically as an 'action' tag.

EDIT: The bulk update request #419 (forum #300027) has been approved by @scaliespe.

We ought to disambiguate knot because for the most part, I'm still thinking of "knot" in the case of tying laces, ribbons, and ropes, and not all about canine penises.

alexyorim said:
We ought to disambiguate knot because for the most part, I'm still thinking of "knot" in the case of tying laces, ribbons, and ropes, and not all about canine penises.

I think in terms of furry art, the use of knot in non-canine knot cases are small enough that it is negligible.
Though it is worth making a note in the knot wiki for potential substitution tags, such as knot_rope or bow_(knot).

Add implicate knot_train -> knotting

I've added a few more implications for the Part 2 BUR, including knot_train, knot_hanging, & urethral_knotting.

Just as a side note, what does everybody think of a knotting -> penetration implication (topic #17331), since knotting is now being unimplied from sex?
The various knotting in orifices will also be implicated with their respective penetration tags, e.g., oral_knotting -> oral_penetration (topic #11194), vaginal_knotting -> vaginal_penetration (topic #19859), & anal_knotting -> anal_penetration (topic #21768).

thegreatwolfgang said:
Just as a side note, what does everybody think of a knotting -> penetration implication (topic #17331), since knotting is now being unimplied from sex?
The various knotting in orifices will also be implicated with their respective penetration tags, e.g., oral_knotting -> oral_penetration (topic #11194), vaginal_knotting -> vaginal_penetration (topic #19859), & anal_knotting -> anal_penetration (topic #21768).

I've had a similar thought. I can't say I've managed to think of an example where that would fail.

I think this is a good idea, and I additionally think that for common combinations, reverse aliases might be ideal too (e.g. tapering_knotted_penis --> knotted_tapering_penis)

snergal said:
I think this is a good idea)

Minus the dildo_knotting. Which should be removed from the list.

aobird said:
Minus the dildo_knotting. Which should be removed from the list.

That is for the Part 2 BUR, you should vote against that next time.
Either way I have removed the implication from the suggestion list.

bumping this, seems reasonable.

What is realistic_knotting? It's tagged on 1 image and has no wiki page

cloudpie said:
What is realistic_knotting? It's tagged on 1 image and has no wiki page

Probably when the knot actually inflates during ejaculation instead of it being inflated and shoved into the penetrated character, repeatedly.

I'm pretty neutral on replacing knot with knotted_penis but I don't think there should be a knotted_canine_penis tag, just like there shouldn't be a tapering_cetacean_penis tag. The point of tags like knotted_equine_penis is that it is unusual for an equine penis to be knotted, so knotted_canine_penis just seems redundant.

cloudpie said:
What is realistic_knotting? It's tagged on 1 image and has no wiki page

It was suggested in topic #26737 & topic #27828 to address concerns related to unrealistic knottings, as well as being an alternative to the reverse tag, inaccurate_knotting.
Though I don't think I have included it in the upcoming BUR proposal since it was a relatively new concept at the time.

themasterpotato said:
I'm pretty neutral on replacing knot with knotted_penis but I don't think there should be a knotted_canine_penis tag, just like there shouldn't be a tapering_cetacean_penis tag. The point of tags like knotted_equine_penis is that it is unusual for an equine penis to be knotted, so knotted_canine_penis just seems redundant.

I think the reason behind that is to improve searchability and blacklisting, since people trying to search for (or avoid) exclusively knotted canine penises can do so through one single tag instead of needing to exclude every other subtag of knotted_penis (i.e., knotted_equine_penis, knotted_feline_penis, etc.).

thegreatwolfgang said:
I think the reason behind that is to improve searchability and blacklisting, since people trying to search for (or avoid) exclusively knotted canine penises can do so through one single tag instead of needing to exclude every other subtag of knotted_penis (i.e., knotted_equine_penis, knotted_feline_penis, etc.).

In theory that's probably true, but there are currently over 116k posts tagged canine_penis, 93216(about 80%) of which are also tagged knot, which means that for this tag to be more useful than just searching/blacklisting canine_penis knot we would have to manually check and tag over 90k posts. Now if knotted_canine_penis or a tag like it is already in use I would be more inclined to agree but otherwise it just seems like trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Searching canine_penis knot ~knotted_equine_penis ~knotted_humanoid_penis ~knotted_tapering_penis ~knotted_feline_penis brings up 503 posts so it seems like it would just create a whole lot of work for very little benefit.

I agree knotted_canine_penis is the default and we don't tag defaults

themasterpotato said:
In theory that's probably true, but there are currently over 116k posts tagged canine_penis, 93216(about 80%) of which are also tagged knot, which means that for this tag to be more useful than just searching/blacklisting canine_penis knot we would have to manually check and tag over 90k posts. Now if knotted_canine_penis or a tag like it is already in use I would be more inclined to agree but otherwise it just seems like trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Searching canine_penis knot ~knotted_equine_penis ~knotted_humanoid_penis ~knotted_tapering_penis ~knotted_feline_penis brings up 503 posts so it seems like it would just create a whole lot of work for very little benefit.

Literally all of the knotted_*_penis tags would be subject to the same logic, with people tagging *_penis + knot separately instead.
Not everybody is going to use it, but it's good to start from somewhere.

Also, this takes into account that knot includes anything that is knotted (e.g., knotted_penis, knotted_dildo, knotted_tentacle, knotted_ovipositor).
Searching for canine_penis knot would no longer be sufficient since it would include everything else with a knot, unless we go with disambiguating knot entirely to force people to choose between the subtags.

cloudpie said:
I agree knotted_canine_penis is the default and we don't tag defaults

We cannot assume knotted_penis to be a canine_penis by default. Same reason we don't assume flared_penis to be equine_penis by default.
It is not without precedence either (see non-canine_knot and topic #36654).

There is just too many weird combinations of knotted penises (see hybrid_penis), and in some cases, entirely unique ones (i.e., most knotted dragon penises).

thegreatwolfgang said:
Literally all of the knotted_*_penis tags would be subject to the same logic, with people tagging *_penis + knot separately instead.
Not everybody is going to use it, but it's good to start from somewhere.

My issue is that those other tags exist because they are a deviation from the norm, the "knotted" is like a modifier added to the "[species]_penis".

Also, this takes into account that knot includes anything that is knotted (e.g., knotted_penis, knotted_dildo, knotted_tentacle, knotted_ovipositor).
Searching for canine_penis knot would no longer be sufficient since it would include everything else with a knot, unless we go with disambiguating knot entirely to force people to choose between the subtags.

In that scenario, wouldn't my current example of canine_penis knot just be equivalent to canine_penis knotted_penis?

We cannot assume knotted_penis to be a canine_penis by default. Same reason we don't assume flared_penis to be equine_penis by default.
It is not without precedence either (see non-canine_knot and topic #36654).

I think what they mean is not that we should assume that a knotted_penis is a canine_penis but rather that the "knotted" part of knotted_canine_penis is already infered by the "canine" part in canine_penis. knotted_equine_penis is not a tag that means equine_penis where the knot is visible, it tells us something unusual about this equine_penis, which is the fact that it has a knot at all. Knotted_canine_penis would then essentially mean, this is a canine_penis that has a knot, which is not sufficiently new information.

There is just too many weird combinations of knotted penises (see hybrid_penis), and in some cases, entirely unique ones (i.e., most knotted dragon penises).

Most of those would not be found when searching canine_penis knot, the only exception being posts in which there is also a canine_penis present.

You could come up with an infinite amount of rags that would theoretically make searching easier, you could have a red_canine_penis tag to make it easier to search and blacklist canine penises which are red without affecting posts that have both a non-red canine penis and a red penis, but that doesn't mean it would actually be a good tag. Unfortunately the tagging system just isn't built to handle multiple characters without creating these situations, and I don't think that throwing more tags at the problem is always going to be the right call.

Count me against knotted_canine_penis too, for all the reasons already stated.

themasterpotato said:
My issue is that those other tags exist because they are a deviation from the norm, the "knotted" is like a modifier added to the "[species]_penis".

The thing is that the norm for knots is not canine_penis though, albeit it is a sizeable majority.
There is also (at least from what I know) no tag for knotted dragon penises, which has quite a substantial number of posts that is untaggable (see dragon knot -humanoid_penis -animal_penis).

In that scenario, wouldn't my current example of canine_penis knot just be equivalent to canine_penis knotted_penis?

No, searching for canine_penis knotted_penis would include knotted canine penises plus any non-canine knotted_penis types that gets featured alongside it.
Say if I don't want those other types of knotted penises in my search results, I would need to exclude every variation of knotted_*_penis just to get one that is purely canine.

I think what they mean is not that we should assume that a knotted_penis is a canine_penis but rather that the "knotted" part of knotted_canine_penis is already infered by the "canine" part in canine_penis. knotted_equine_penis is not a tag that means equine_penis where the knot is visible, it tells us something unusual about this equine_penis, which is the fact that it has a knot at all. Knotted_canine_penis would then essentially mean, this is a canine_penis that has a knot, which is not sufficiently new information.

Not all canine_penis would (visually) have a knot though. For example, searching canine_penis knot may give you results of a still-sheathed canine_penis and maybe a knotted tentacle or dildo in the scene.
Alternatively, searching canine_penis knotted_penis (if the BUR gets passed) would still run into the problem I mentioned above, as well as another that I will mention in the next part.

Most of those would not be found when searching canine_penis knot, the only exception being posts in which there is also a canine_penis present.

You could come up with an infinite amount of rags that would theoretically make searching easier, you could have a red_canine_penis tag to make it easier to search and blacklist canine penises which are red without affecting posts that have both a non-red canine penis and a red penis, but that doesn't mean it would actually be a good tag. Unfortunately the tagging system just isn't built to handle multiple characters without creating these situations, and I don't think that throwing more tags at the problem is always going to be the right call.

Not really, people tag the corresponding animal_penis types alongside hybrid_penis, so searching canine_penis knotted_penis would still include results for hybridised canine penises.

You could argue that excluding hybrid_penis from your search should remove all kinds of hybridised canine penises, but it would also remove posts that coincidentally feature a non-canine hybrid_penis alongside a pure canine_penis one.

Not to mention it still does not address the thing with knotted dragon penises which currently cannot be excluded from the pile of knotted_penis should it be default to canines.
You could also argue to remove dragon from the search result as well, then you'd get something like canine_penis knotted_penis -hybrid_penis -dragon to get something as simple as a knotted_canine_penis.

On the other hand, there is also knotted_canine_dildo. But that is a whole separate discussion for another time, possibly just an alias to canine_dildo though.

Overall, I don't know. If people think knotted_canine_penis is not justified enough to be a separate tag, I can create it in a separate BUR.
For now though, we should get the Part 1 BUR approved first so that I can suggest Part 2 and get the ball rolling.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Not really, people tag the corresponding animal_penis types alongside hybrid_penis, so searching canine_penis knotted_penis would still include results for hybridised canine penises.

Currently that would be a whole 384 posts out of over 90k tagged canine_penis knot and as you said, those are easy to filter out if you really don't want to see them for some reason.

Not to mention it still does not address the thing with knotted dragon penises which currently cannot be excluded from the pile of knotted_penis should it be default to canines.
You could also argue to remove dragon from the search result as well, then you'd get something like canine_penis knotted_penis -hybrid_penis -dragon to get something as simple as a knotted_canine_penis.

Doing some quick math that brings the total results down to about 88k from about 94k. That doesn't look like it makes a huge difference to the actual search results and the overlap between dragon knotted_penis and canine_penis knotted_penis doesn't seem that big in comparison to the total amount of posts.

But the problem really isn't that this tag wouldn't be useful, because in theory it would be, but the problems it aims to fix seem too small and the tag itself is just too redundant. And using the same logic you could justify coming up with any kind of tag you want, like to avoid finding posts that contain a flaccid humanoid_penis alongside an erect animal_penis when searching erection humanoid_penis, you could make the erect_humanoid_penis tag. And you could come up with all the same reasons why just erection humanoid_penis -flaccid isn't a good enough alternative, because that would then remove images that have both an erect humanoid_penis and a flacid penis of any kind. I think that the only way to truly solve this problem is to somehow implement a per character tagging and search system.

I think that the first step for considering using such a tag needs to be for it to already exist and be in use, but even if knotted_canine_penis was in use it would still have the inherent redundancy issue. Because most people searching for canine_penis are already going to assume that it is going to have a knot in the same way that a humanoid_penis is expected to have a glans, even though not every post will show that.

On the topic of tagging all the miscelaneous knotted penises though, there might be ways to tag those more comprehensively, there already is a knotted_tapering_penis tag that would probably apply to a decent amount of them.

themasterpotato said:
I think that the first step for considering using such a tag needs to be for it to already exist and be in use, but even if knotted_canine_penis was in use it would still have the inherent redundancy issue. Because most people searching for canine_penis are already going to assume that it is going to have a knot in the same way that a humanoid_penis is expected to have a glans, even though not every post will show that.

I have to say, I am not hardline'd with the idea of knotted_canine_penis and do agree that it is somewhat redundant since the majority of canine_penis do feature a knot when fully erect.
However, I feel conflicted when taking it together as a whole with their dildo counterparts, such as the case with knotted_canine_dildo.

I feel that, in this case, knotted_canine_dildo is also redundant and can be aliased to knotted_dildo (or even canine_dildo since the most distinguishing feature would be the knot).
But there is also the case of dragon_dildo, which is in a state of limbo of either being invalid (due to its similarities to dragon_penis, see topic #36417) or valid (due to a lack of a better tag and its connotations with Bad_Dragon products).

Regardless of its validity, the idea of a centralised dragon penis tag is not a foreign one (see topic #11124 & topic #12397). It fails, however, due to it not being grounded in any real-world genital types (i.e., not just a reskinned animal_penis) and is highly subjective to creative interpretation.
Thus, it is mostly regulated to its most basic penile features (e.g., nubbed_penis, ribbed_penis, ridged_penis, spiked_penis, etc.), with the most tagged feature I feel being tapering_penis and knot.
Heck, even the old wiki for dragon_penis mention that it is seen "usually with a knot", and I wouldn't doubt people would associate Bad Dragon products as being analogous to dragon penises/dildos.
You just don't really see a lot of animal_penis, barbed_penis, or flared_penis (that isn't already an equine_penis) being featured on dragons, unless the dragons themselves are based off the real-world species.

Now, tying it all back to the idea of knotted_canine_penis, we probably do not need to have the tag. However, people will need to be content with it sharing its space with the frustratingly "untaggable" dragon penises.

themasterpotato said:
On the topic of tagging all the miscelaneous knotted penises though, there might be ways to tag those more comprehensively, there already is a knotted_tapering_penis tag that would probably apply to a decent amount of them.

Not really. Though I do used tapering_penis to describe most dragon penises, I have been told that it should only apply to those with distinctly conical appearance akin to that of a cervine_penis or cetacean_penis. I would think the same would apply with knotted_tapering_penis, since it will imply tapering_penis in the next BUR.
So anything that is shaped like a rocket (tubular shaft with short tapered tip) or one that is packed with additional penile features (e.g., bulbous, ridges, spikes, glans, etc.) should not be tagged with tapering_penis.

Something like post #4183574 would not qualify as knotted_tapering_penis. Thus, bringing back to my point of this frustrating gap.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Not really. Though I do used tapering_penis to describe most dragon penises, I have been told that it should only apply to those with distinctly conical appearance akin to that of a cervine_penis or cetacean_penis. I would think the same would apply with knotted_tapering_penis, since it will imply tapering_penis in the next BUR.
So anything that is shaped like a rocket (tubular shaft with short tapered tip) or one that is packed with additional penile features (e.g., bulbous, ridges, spikes, glans, etc.) should not be tagged with tapering_penis.

Something like post #4183574 would not qualify as knotted_tapering_penis. Thus, bringing back to my point of this frustrating gap.

I was gonna suggest maybe using fantasy_penis because dildos from companies like bad dragon are commonly refered to as fantasy toys, and found out that it is currently aliased to unusual_penis. Maybe it could be brought back, although I do worry that it might be too broad of a tag. But if it did get unaliased you could then also make a knotted_fantasy_penis tag which could then be used to tag all your knotted dragons.

Currently there seems to be a bit of a gap between common penises(animal_penis, humanoid_penis) and unusual_penis. In theory hybrid_penis might be able to fill some (or perhaps all) of that gap as well but I'm not sure if that tag was intended to cover things like ridged_penis or spiked_penis as well, since it only mentioned standard animal features on the wiki.

I think for now it might be best to rely on tagging hybrid_penis to help with filtering out knotted non-canine penises.

themasterpotato said:
I was gonna suggest maybe using fantasy_penis because dildos from companies like bad dragon are commonly refered to as fantasy toys, and found out that it is currently aliased to unusual_penis. Maybe it could be brought back, although I do worry that it might be too broad of a tag. But if it did get unaliased you could then also make a knotted_fantasy_penis tag which could then be used to tag all your knotted dragons.

Looking at the current penis types we are tagging though (i.e., animal_penis, humanoid_penis, hybrid_penis, mechanical_penis, unusual_penis, vacuum_penis), the closest tag that could be used for the same purpose is unusual_penis.
However, the criteria for unusual_penis is that it needs to be very unusual and that it "hardly looks like a penis at all".

Bringing back fantasy_penis could work, but an inherent overlap with unusual_penis is to be expected and people would definitely need some convincing for the reintroduction.

Currently there seems to be a bit of a gap between common penises(animal_penis, humanoid_penis) and unusual_penis. In theory hybrid_penis might be able to fill some (or perhaps all) of that gap as well but I'm not sure if that tag was intended to cover things like ridged_penis or spiked_penis as well, since it only mentioned standard animal features on the wiki.

I think for now it might be best to rely on tagging hybrid_penis to help with filtering out knotted non-canine penises.

Yeah, I agree. There is no tag for a uncommon (or non-real-life based) penis type, that is also not too otherworldly to be considered an unusual_penis.

According to @Genjar's comments on topic #24185, I think hybrid_penis should only apply if the penis deviates from its base penis type, so that you would be able to blacklist the results that are not anatomically correct.
Ideally, it needs to have a base penis type that has been hybridised with another penis type or feature. It should not exist by itself (i.e., just tagging a penis as being a hybrid_penis without including other penis types) .

For example, you can tag two existing penis types to go along with it, such as hybrid_penis knotted_penis equine_penis (in other words, a knotted_equine_penis is a hybrid_penis).
However, you cannot tag something as being hybrid if it is anatomically correct (e.g., knotted_canine_penis, barbed_feline_penis) or is just a combination of penile features without a base penis type (e.g., knotted_barbed_penis, ridged_spiked_penis, knotted_tapering_penis).

thegreatwolfgang said:
Bringing back fantasy_penis could work, but an inherent overlap with unusual_penis is to be expected and people would definitely need some convincing for the reintroduction.

I also feel fantasy_penis would get confused for being related to fantasy creatures/settings, rather than any made up or fictional design (including robots, aliens, and sci-fi creatures).

watsit said:
I also feel fantasy_penis would get confused for being related to fantasy creatures/settings, rather than any made up or fictional design (including robots, aliens, and sci-fi creatures).

Yeah, it sounds like it could be very subjective (e.g., a glowing humanoid_penis could be called a fantasy_penis) but I can't think of a better name.
I have thought of uncommon_penis, but that would be synonymous with unusual_penis. Then, there is fictional_penis, but that could include anything that is made up (e.g., glowing humanoid penis again).

thegreatwolfgang said:
Yeah, it sounds like it could be very subjective (e.g., a glowing humanoid_penis could be called a fantasy_penis) but I can't think of a better name.
I have thought of uncommon_penis, but that would be synonymous with unusual_penis. Then, there is fictional_penis, but that could include anything that is made up (e.g., glowing humanoid penis again).

Since what exists in reality vs fantasy can sometimes be rather vague, with a lot of people attributing something to being fantasy/fiction because it's weird and they don't know that it's actually real, that may be why the current aliases set on unusual_penis. It's not a usual penis, regardless of it being fantastical, made-up, or something obscure in nature, and trying to distinguish them would result in many mix-ups and confusion.

thegreatwolfgang said:
According to @Genjar's comments on topic #24185, I think hybrid_penis should only apply if the penis deviates from its base penis type, so that you would be able to blacklist the results that are not anatomically correct.
Ideally, it needs to have a base penis type that has been hybridised with another penis type or feature. It should not exist by itself (i.e., just tagging a penis as being a hybrid_penis without including other penis types) .

I think that mostly depends on what constitutes a penis type. Personally I could see tapering_penis, flared_penis etc being considered penis types as well, and the wiki only says it needs to have features of other types of penises.
I could see utility in using it more broadly and the final example in the wiki does seem to be written in a way that suggests that you can just mix and match, since the post they use as an example really does not look like a humanoid penis, even if it is tagged as such.

The bulk update request #419 (forum #300027) has been approved by @scaliespe.

This is knot to be taken lightly

I will suggest the Part 2 BUR in another thread and include some edits/considerations discussed here.

EDIT: Part 2 is on topic #44531.