The tag alias #50519 defecating -> pooping has been rejected.

Reason: Those 2 are synonyms, also defecation has already been aliased to pooping.

EDIT: The tag alias defecating -> pooping (forum #302058) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

I kinda feel like this should be reversed.

I agree with there being an alias, but also agree with Watsit in that it's better reversed.

We use peeing instead of urinating, and I think peeing and pooping make a better pair than peeing and defecating.

faucet said:
We use peeing instead of urinating, and I think peeing and pooping make a better pair than peeing and defecating.

Arguably, in regards to that alias, it's not always urine that comes out, so even though a character might be peeing, they wouldn't necessarily be urinating. On the other hand, both terms in this alias refer to feces coming out. Other things coming out, such as beads or even Savage Dragon climbing his way ignominiously after a miserable slog through some kaiju's digestive system, doesn't count as either defecation or pooping.

clawstripe said:
Arguably, in regards to that alias, it's not always urine that comes out, so even though a character might be peeing, they wouldn't necessarily be urinating. On the other hand, both terms in this alias refer to feces coming out. Other things coming out, such as beads or even Savage Dragon climbing his way ignominiously after a miserable slog through some kaiju's digestive system, doesn't count as either defecation or pooping.

Feces and urine are by definition the waste product of the digestive system, if a character's digestive system creates instead of the classical yellow urine, for instance, chocolate_milk, even if the thing coming out is something you can consider food, for the character is a waste product so it's considered by definition urine. The feces are the same thing, I saw somewhere an image of a glaceon pooping ice_cream, and even if ice_cream is considered food ,by definition, in this case is also feces; in the cases of anal_beads you can't consider them feces because they haven't been processed in the digestive system.

glaceddon said:
Feces and urine are by definition the waste product of the digestive system, if a character's digestive system creates instead of the classical yellow urine, for instance, chocolate_milk, even if the thing coming out is something you can consider food, for the character is a waste product so it's considered by definition urine. The feces are the same thing, I saw somewhere an image of a glaceon pooping ice_cream, and even if ice_cream is considered food ,by definition, in this case is also feces; in the cases of anal_beads you can't consider them feces because they haven't been processed in the digestive system.

That's...not remotely how any of that works.

Anyway I prefer pooping over defecation because I don't see defecation being used so often.

Should be flipped.

Should be the other way around, and "peeing" changed to urination while "pooping" is inverted to "defecating", to be honest. This just seems... juvenile, like if we went and changed "penis" to "wiener" or "pee-pee".

votp said:
Should be the other way around, and "peeing" changed to urination while "pooping" is inverted to "defecating", to be honest.

If you use urination, wouldn't defecation be more consistent? Or urinating with defecating.

watsit said:
If you use urination, wouldn't defecation be more consistent? Or urinating with defecating.

... You know exactly the point I was making, which particular variants of the two (-ating or -ation) are used is irrelevant so long as one set of them is decided upon, "peeing" and "pooping" make it sound like the site is populated by actual children.

votp said:
Should be the other way around, and "peeing" changed to urination while "pooping" is inverted to "defecating", to be honest. This just seems... juvenile, like if we went and changed "penis" to "wiener" or "pee-pee".

Or if we went and changed vagina to pussy... oh wait, we already did.

Either way, can a decision be made one way or the other? I favour retaining pooping just because it's less effort, but if the alias is reversed then peeing should go the same way. I don't buy the "peeing chocolate milk" argument against it, because we already have a similar situation with the unusual_cum tags.

I guess one argument in favour of a urination tag would be that, with the recent removal of the peeing -> urine implication, it would make it more obvious that they are two different tags, along the same lines as clothing/clothed.

wat8548 said:
Or if we went and changed vagina to pussy... oh wait, we already did.

Trust me youre not the only person who's mad about that.

Either way. It should be flipped as previously mentioned.

The tag alias defecating -> pooping (forum #302058) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

wat8548 said:
Or if we went and changed vagina to pussy... oh wait, we already did.

demesejha said:
Trust me youre not the only person who's mad about that.

The stated reason for that is because "vagina" technically refers to the canal between the external genitalia and the cervix. They wanted a tag which encompassed both the vagina and the vulva for tagging purposes. "Pussy" does so, but there's no simple term which technically refers to both.

Now with that said, that's the reason I've seen given multiple times for this, but I don't necessarily agree. I think colloquially "vagina" can, in fact, refer to both, and is commonly used and understood that way. It would be fine to use as a tag. The purpose of tags is not necessarily to always be perfectly accurate.

Well, now both this and topic #28493 have been rejected, leaving us in the same limbo as before. So, @Millcore and @Rainbow_Dash, which is it going to be? Are all the peeing and pooping tags going to be changed to urinating and defecating? Or is the current situation going to prevail, in which case can you please at least approve this alias because it is actually causing a current problem?

wat8548 said:
Well, now both this and topic #28493 have been rejected…

I'm the writer of the BUR in topic #28493. I believe that it might have been rejected due to the lack of a proper explanation from my part. As a reason, I simply linked this discussion and presumed that the purpose of the tag relationship removal would be obvious.

I was sure that everyone who downvoted this alias would agree with the BUR, but confusingly enough that was not the case. Should I just submit it again (with proper argumentation from the start this time, of course)?