The tag alias #52227 cooking_vore -> cooking_with_furs has been rejected.

Reason: cooking_vore and cooking_with_furs appear to be duplicate tags

• the descriptions are identical, except that cooking_vore describing more specific methods of preparation
• there's no difference in the content between the two tags
• cooking_vore already implicates cooking_with_furs
• images tagged cooking_vore already make up 204 of the 299 images tagged cooking_with_furs
• images tagged cooking_with_furs but not cooking_vore would still fall under the definition of cooking_vore's wiki page
• cooking_with_furs is a more descriptive tag, and has been around since 2010, cooking_vore is vaguer and only has been up since 2019
• cooking_vore implies consumption within the image (TWYS) but most cooking_vore is simply a character being cooked or having been prepared as a dish
• if a character is cooked and is then shown to be eaten it would likely fall under hard_vore and cooking_with_furs.

Is there any good reason to not merge these two tags that I'm not seeing?

EDIT: The tag alias cooking_vore -> cooking_with_furs (forum #311736) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

Cooking with Furs sounds like a furry TV show. Either way, it seems to be a bad tag, especially with how cooking_vore implicates it. What if the character being cooked is a scalie or human(oid)? It would be cooking vore, but it wouldn't be cooking a "fur".

watsit said:
Cooking with Furs sounds like a furry TV show. Either way, it seems to be a bad tag, especially with how cooking_vore implicates it. What if the character being cooked is a scalie or human(oid)? It would be cooking vore, but it wouldn't be cooking a "fur".

You're not wrong and personally I'm not the biggest fan of that part of the tag name either. Though even if it doesn't explicitly include human/oid, scalie, etc characters, people tag humans and scalies being cooked as cooking_with_furs anyways.

"cooking_with_furs" is more descriptive and accurate than "cooking vore"... by including "vore" the tag implies someone will be eaten in the image or explicitly implied to be eaten soon (which would fall under imminent_vore, hard_vore, or less likely soft/oral_vore, if they're cooked and eaten whole?), but most cooking_vore/cooking_with_furs images only show the character cooked, in the process of cooking, or laid out on a dish.

I'm ambivalent towards the name, if they get merged, there can definitely be a discussion about changing it, though I don't have any suggestions to improve it.

I'm looking at the stuff under "Cooking vore" and it's not really vore? Just characters being cooked some way or another. Aliasing away from a "vore" tag sounds like a good thing.

The bulk update request #1002 is active.

remove implication cooking_vore (0) -> cooking_with_furs (1230)

Reason: Cooking Vore is not Vore. The tag needs to be changed, whether or not topic #29862 is approved.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1002 (forum #311743) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

furrin_gok said:
I'm looking at the stuff under "Cooking vore" and it's not really vore? Just characters being cooked some way or another. Aliasing away from a "vore" tag sounds like a good thing.

That's maybe my biggest reason to get rid of the tag, it's not actually vore - there's no consumption going on in 99% of the images, and the ones that do, fall under common vore tags.

The bulk update request #1002 (forum #311743) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

Well, cooking_vore was apparently nuked at some point.

I agree with using a different tag for this sort of thing, but is there a better name for it?
As it has been pointed out, cooking_with_furs sounds kind of silly.

bitwolfy said:
I agree with using a different tag for this sort of thing, but is there a better name for it?
As it has been pointed out, cooking_with_furs sounds kind of silly.

or cooking_another or some similar variant?

^ also I'm not sure what's causing the line break in my message here.

?

vulkalu said:
also I'm not sure what's causing the line break in my message here.

I believe that starting a line with inline code is the cause.

gattonero2001 said:
I believe that starting a line with inline code is the cause.

Oh. Thank you, I wasn't even thinking about that. Seems like a weird thing to happen, but I'll keep that in mind.

Hmm. cooking_character or cooking_another don't really work, since some posts (ex. post #2718083, or post #1042274) do not feature actual cooking.
The food_dressed would work better, but I wouldn't call ex. post #3019549 "food dressed".

I'm starting to think that this isn't a very good tag to begin with.
I'm going to tag the posts where the character is actually prepared to be cooked with food_dressed (ex. post #2957989).
Still not sure about what to do with the cooking_with_furs tag.

bitwolfy said:
Hmm. cooking_character or cooking_another don't really work, since some posts (ex. post #2718083, or post #1042274) do not feature actual cooking.
The food_dressed would work better, but I wouldn't call ex. post #3019549 "food dressed".

post #2718083 is "dressed as food" and post #1042274 is "dressed with food", which would both qualify, but yeah, post #3019549 isn't even dressed, that's just literally cooking a body part.

I'm starting to think that this isn't a very good tag to begin with.
I'm going to tag the posts where the character is actually prepared to be cooked with food_dressed (ex. post #2957989).
Still not sure about what to do with the cooking_with_furs tag.

No matter what we did, some degree of cleanup would be needed. We might be able to keep some form of the tag proper for posts like when it's simply a body part being cooked, or apply those to a new tag and have that as some form of umbrella.

The tag alias cooking_vore -> cooking_with_furs (forum #311736) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.