The bulk update request #1337 has been rejected.

Reason: Several tags use the terms predator (or pred) and/or prey.

However, there are two conflicting definitions of these terms being used simultaneously, which leads to confusion and mistagging.

The most common is the vore definition, used for tags that indicate gender, size or form.

According to the vore definition, a predator is a character that vores a prey and a prey is a character that is vored by a predator.

The definition used for the tags that indicate penetration and for predator/prey itself is the same definition used in the description of the real life biological interaction known as predation.

The above BUR (a joint effort by Hairnoi and me) aims to update the current ambiguous tags to more specific equivalents with suffixes that make their usage explicit.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1337 (forum #316916) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.

My only suggestion is to remove semi-anthro_prey_(vore). The semi-anthro tag is meant for characters that aren't easy to tag as anthro/feral. It should be used alongside anthro or feral, but never by itself.

abstractedtown said:
(...)

Replaced that line, thank you for your input.

I think we should only keep larger_pred or Smaller_prey

And

Smaller_pred or larger_prey.

Both of these are basically the same tag since one by definition requires the other.

I'd probably advocate for keeping the pred side since typically a pred needs to be visible for it to make sense, though a prey may not necessarily be, al la pics without internals and the prey already swallowed

gyrotech said:
(...)

You're right, that's exactly what I was planning to do. However, this BUR contains only updates at the moment, and I'll wait until it is approved to write a more detailed one with aliases and implications.

I'm not sure why there would be a need to distinguish between vore use and non-vore use given the non-vore use is only (to my knowledge) represented by predator_prey_relashionship. As far as I can tell, natural predation is not something that can be established for species without relying on fore-knowledge of zoology or the lore of fictional species. When predation is depicted as happenning, it would either count as hard_vore, some variant of chasing (maybe chasing_prey?) or stalking (stalking_prey?), but I don't see why additional depth is needed for what is, when you look at it for what it is, a lore tag.

I would actually like to see a use case for the non-vore variant of these tags, because the rationale alone has me very skeptical.

EDIT: I'll actually add a few extra questions:

• Are lions considered predators to bears or vice versa, given there is no place on earth where they share a common ecosystem? Is a lion chasing a bear considered predation? Reverse predation?
• What of animals that are mutual predators in a given ecosystem, like jaguars and crocodiles or mongooses and snakes?

fifteen said:
I'm not sure why there would be a need to distinguish between vore use and non-vore use given the non-vore use is only (to my knowledge) represented by predator_prey_relashionship.

As I said in the BUR's "Reason" box: The definition used for the tags that indicate penetration and for predator/prey itself is the same definition used in the description of the real life biological interaction known as predation.

One example of "tag that indicates penetration" would be predator_penetrated, which does not seem to be used for vore. Notice that predator_prey_relashionship and a few other tags have been aliased to predator/prey.

As far as I can tell, natural predation is not something that can be established for species without relying on fore-knowledge of zoology or the lore of fictional species.

That is true. It is also true of species tags themselves.

When predation is depicted as happenning, it would either count as hard_vore, some variant of chasing (maybe chasing_prey?) or stalking (stalking_prey?), but I don't see why additional depth is needed for what is, when you look at it for what it is, a lore tag.

According to predator/prey's wiki page: Note that this label by itself doesn't imply anything about the character's interactions.

I would actually like to see a use case for the non-vore variant of these tags, because the rationale alone has me very skeptical.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you questioning the validity of (for example) male_predator_(biological) or predator/prey itself?

EDIT: I'll actually add a few extra questions:

• Are lions considered predators to bears or vice versa, given there is no place on earth where they share a common ecosystem? Is a lion chasing a bear considered predation? Reverse predation?

Given there is no place on earth where they share a common ecosystem, lions and bears do not naturally interact in real life, therefore predator/prey would not be applicable.

Predator/prey would be applicable to, for example:

It would NOT be applicable to, for example:

• What of animals that are mutual predators in a given ecosystem, like jaguars and crocodiles or mongooses and snakes?

I believe that, in most cases, jaguars predate alligators (not crocodiles, since their habitats do not overlap) and mongooses predate snakes, but the opposite is much rarer. Regardless, predator/prey would be applicable whenever a jaguar and an alligator or a mongoose and a snake interact.

gattonero2001 said:
According to predator/prey's wiki page: Note that this label by itself doesn't imply anything about the character's interactions.

That seems quite vague. Surely there'd have to be some hint of vore or predation behavior? Otherwise, posts like
post #2714324
would count since a lion and zebra (natural predator and prey) are depicted. That seems silly. I don't think many people would think to tag posts like
post #2921253
either, since it's two anthros having gay sex that just happen to be a lion and zebra.

watsit said:
I don't think many people would think to tag posts like
post #2921253
either, since it's two anthros having gay sex that just happen to be a lion and zebra.

Well, the tag used to be predator/prey_relationships, but that got aliased (supposedly by alias #10881, though it's shill shown as pending and I'm not seeing any other BUR or alias request for it?) to just predator/prey for reasons I still don't quite get, but it's supposed to be covered, apparently.

gattonero2001 said:
As I said in the BUR's "Reason" box: The definition used for the tags that indicate penetration and for predator/prey itself is the same definition used in the description of the real life biological interaction known as predation.

One example of "tag that indicates penetration" would be predator_penetrated, which does not seem to be used for vore. Notice that predator_prey_relashionship and a few other tags have been aliased to predator/prey.

I can see predator_penetrated as a potentially noteworthy role reversal (given the expectation that the prey "should" be the one getting penetrated "as nature intended"). I'm still not convinced that this would be the right approach, though, given it adds complexity to some basically mandatory vore tags. Suffixing ambiguous tags is something that should be reserved for characters and occasionally species and used as a last resort (I'd much prefer typing ash_ketchum than ash_(pokémon)), but here it's just going to make vore tagging extra tedious from the extra wordy tag names.

That is true. It is also true of species tags themselves.

According to predator/prey's wiki page: Note that this label by itself doesn't imply anything about the character's interactions.

Well, that's something I would partly blame on the agressive aliasing. In my opinion, the aliases of that whole tag should be re-done, because predator/prey is ambiguous in what it should cover, and all the obvious subtags are aliased instead.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you questioning the validity of (for example) male_predator_(biological) or predator/prey itself?

Oh, I understand why the predator/prey stuff is worth tagging in more details, don't get me wrong, but the amount of detail proposed here - and especially how it affects dozens of existing and well established tags - puts me off and would require some pretty solid justifications to go about it this way. Someone I was discussing this topic with brought up the possibility of natural_predator as a less... disruptive basis for such a tag familly.

Given there is no place on earth where they share a common ecosystem, lions and bears do not naturally interact in real life, therefore predator/prey would not be applicable.

[...snip...]

I believe that, in most cases, jaguars predate alligators (not crocodiles, since their habitats do not overlap) and mongooses predate snakes, but the opposite is much rarer. Regardless, predator/prey would be applicable whenever a jaguar and an alligator or a mongoose and a snake interact.

Right, ok, I just wanted to confirm how you intended for those to apply. Basically a tag that highlights known natural relationships in shared ecosystems. In that sense, it's not really a "biological" relationship (it's not really about being fit to hunt one another, just about usually doing so), more of an ecological one, so I would say the _(biolocial) suffix isn't especially fitting, either. While it would get a bit wordy, I would argue more in favor of natural_predator_penetrated or something of the sort.

fifteen said:
Suffixing ambiguous tags is something that should be reserved for characters and occasionally species and used as a last resort (I'd much prefer typing ash_ketchum than ash_(pokémon)), but here it's just going to make vore tagging extra tedious from the extra wordy tag names.

Echoing all of this. This BUR is entirely unnecessary, it's needlessly changing tags that apply to over 17,000 posts (and that's just the gender_pred/prey tags) for the sake of a handful of tags that have post counts in the low hundreds at most (except for predator/prey). "Pred" is common vore terminology, enough that a tag using "predator" seems to be just enough that nobody is confusing it for a vore tag. If there's an ambiguous or problem tag here, it's predator/prey, not the several dozen tags you have listed here which are working fine without adding a bracketed suffix.

The bulk update request #1337 (forum #316916) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.