The tag implication #37612 cooking_vore -> vore has been rejected.

Reason: Obvious.

EDIT: The tag implication cooking_vore -> vore (forum #305013) has been approved by @Millcore.

EDIT: The tag implication cooking_vore -> vore (forum #305013) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.

Cooking vore doesn't have to include the actual act of consumption. Does imminent_vore implicate vore? If not, then this should not be implicated either.

thirtyeight said:
Does imminent_vore implicate vore?

Not anymore. It used to, by mistake, but was somewhat recently deimplicated.

watsit said:
Not anymore. It used to, by mistake, but was somewhat recently deimplicated.

Than this implication should not be made.

The tag implication cooking_vore -> vore (forum #305013) has been approved by @Millcore.

I'm a bit suprised this was approved when images under this tag only feature characters cooked into a dish, not characters being eaten. That's not vore.

This should probably be switched to imminent_vore instead. I think this was just approved so the big vore BUR could go through.

The tag implication cooking_vore -> vore (forum #305013) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.