Topic: Big BUR of Mostly Macro Tags

The bulk update request #3403 is pending approval.

create implication holding_vehicle (184) -> vehicle (60000)
create implication holding_building (74) -> building (30119)
create implication holding_planet (159) -> planet (5700)
create implication sitting_on_vehicle (254) -> vehicle (60000)
create implication sitting_on_building (172) -> building (30119)
create implication sitting_on_planet (123) -> planet (5700)
create implication vehicle_penetrated (124) -> vehicle (60000)
create implication building_penetrated (469) -> building (30119)
create implication planet_penetrated (179) -> planet (5700)
create implication vehicle_insertion (131) -> vehicle (60000)
create implication building_insertion (177) -> building (30119)
create implication planet_insertion (84) -> planet (5700)
create implication holding_vehicle (184) -> holding_object (228081)
create implication holding_building (74) -> holding_object (228081)
create implication holding_planet (159) -> holding_object (228081)
create implication building_penetrated (469) -> building_sex (610)
create implication building_insertion (177) -> building_sex (610)

Reason: A BUR adding implications to (usually) macro related interaction tags. ^{obviously sitting on vehicle also covers normal sized people sitting on the hood, roof or trunk of a vehicle}

Reasons:

• holding, sitting on, penetrating or inserting a vehicle, building or planet inherently requires those objects be visible
• holding any of the above means a character is holding an object
• building_sex is (apparently) the umbrella tag for giant characters using buildings as improvised sex toys, so building_penetration and building_insertion should imply it.

hungrymaple said:
vehicle_penetration
building_penetration
planet_penetration

These should probably be given less ambiguous names, as they aren't clear whether they mean the vehicle/building/planet is doing the penetration or is the thing being penetrated. The _penetration tags in general are annoyingly inconsistent (vaginal_penetration vs penile_penetration, anal_penetration vs tentacle_penetration), and it seems people are confusing building_penetration to mean the building does the penetration rather than the building being penetrated like it's wiki says.

watsit said:
These should probably be given less ambiguous names, as they aren't clear whether they mean the vehicle/building/planet is doing the penetration or is the thing being penetrated. The _penetration tags in general are annoyingly inconsistent (vaginal_penetration vs penile_penetration, anal_penetration vs tentacle_penetration), and it seems people are confusing building_penetration to mean the building does the penetration rather than the building being penetrated like it's wiki says.

Agreed. I didn't initially realise that was their intended meaning.

A move in the right direction, might be swapping those to be *_penetrated instead. So using "building_penetrated" would make it clearer that the building is the thing being penetrated... and that it is not being used to penetrate someone else. Because yes, which way the penetration goes is rather ambiguous with those. And checking around, I can see that tagging confusion does happen that way with them.

As for the same issue with the other penetration tags in general: In some cases, I'm not sure that it's even possible to have any other meaning (like vaginal_penetration seems like it can only go one way). But I suppose if there's enough of a case for the other tags that can be used both ways, then for consistency... moving the "being penetrated" meaning tags to be *_penetrated instead might be a good idea. A big project probably. Then again, I can't be the only one who sometimes has to doublecheck the wikis for a few minutes just to be sure about which direction some of those less common "penetration" ones go. And mistags for the other direction are common in many of those. So yeah, making them a little more clearer/consistent might be worth it.

Back to the main topic: other than that side issue about whether or not 'penetration' is the best name for those three... the rest of this set of implications does look decent.

watsit said:
These should probably be given less ambiguous names, as they aren't clear whether they mean the vehicle/building/planet is doing the penetration or is the thing being penetrated. The _penetration tags in general are annoyingly inconsistent (vaginal_penetration vs penile_penetration, anal_penetration vs tentacle_penetration), and it seems people are confusing building_penetration to mean the building does the penetration rather than the building being penetrated like it's wiki says

furrypickle said:
Agreed. I didn't initially realise that was their intended meaning.

A move in the right direction, might be swapping those to be *_penetrated instead. So using "building_penetrated" would make it clearer that the building is the thing being penetrated... and that it is not being used to penetrate someone else. Because yes, which way the penetration goes is rather ambiguous with those. And checking around, I can see that tagging confusion does happen that way with them.

You're both right, I hadn't thought about that. At least with orifices the use of *_penetration makes sense, there's no question what's being penetrated. In this case, these are objects that can be penetrated or inserted (causing them to penetrate an orifice). *_penetrated is the only naming scheme that seems to make sense in this case to clear up any ambiguity.

Seeing as there are relatively few posts tagged to each of the *_penetration tags in this BUR, and since I added most of those posts anyways, I'll go ahead and swap the tag names around with script instead of worrying about a mass update in the BUR, copy over the wiki page descriptions, fix some links and update the BUR to include the new tag names.

Also, aliasing the tags away could be done in this BUR or a secondary one (to keep this BUR from getting more complicated than it already is), along with some different wordings of the same concept (e.g. penetrating_building), although that could get messy, and considering they're empty tags, it's probably not worth it.