The tag alias #64291 carrying_another -> carrying has been rejected.

Reason: Both tags are referring to the same thing

carrying:
Used where a character is supporting all of the weight of another character (not an object), raised off of the ground or other surface. Parts of the carried character may contact the ground or other surfaces, but should not bear weight.

Carrying already requires it to be another character.

EDIT: The tag alias carrying_another -> carrying (forum #379786) has been rejected by @SNPtheCat.

I feel like carrying is more prone to mistagging, so perhaps the allias should go the other way around. Or perhaps both should be aliased to carrying_character, using the same format as holding_character, which is mentioned on the wiki page of carrying.
I'm not a big fan of tags that have a more specific definition than someone would expect from only reading the tag itself, and since carrying in everyday speech refers to both people and objects, going against that just seems like it will only lead to more work from having to fix mistags.

I agree with themasterpotato here. It makes no sense for carrying to be restricted to only characters, when that's not what the word itself means. Tags should match their name, regardless of wiki.

scth said:
I agree with themasterpotato here. It makes no sense for carrying to be restricted to only characters, when that's not what the word itself means. Tags should match their name, regardless of wiki.

We have holding_object for things other than characters.

wat8548 said:
We have holding_object for things other than characters.

I am aware, and holding objects vs characters should be separate. The issue is that the only reason carrying is limited to characters, is because of the wiki. That leads to mistags, which could be fixed by renaming the tag.
If a tag is getting mistags that make sense without reading the wiki, then the tag is at fault, not the taggers.

wat8548 said:
We have holding_object for things other than characters.

We also have holding_character, and holding has been aliased to holding_(disambiguation). I would suggest we do something similar with carrying, because the real world definition of the word is far less specific than our definition, which is basically just begging for mistags.

if we did expand carrying to include something other than characters where would the line be between "carrying" and "holding"?

themasterpotato said:
We also have holding_character

the usage of holding_character seems to currently be somewhat arbitrary. it puts carrying in the "Not to be confused with:" section but does not seem to differentiate itself in its tag description other than specifying the held character being "smaller" with half of the example images showing character pairs that are barely a size class apart.

On a tangential note, does any of these tags cover the case of an animal holding another (e.g. their young or a prey) with their mouth? I have used body_in_mouth but that seems a bit too unspecific.

sipothac said:
if we did expand carrying to include something other than characters where would the line be between "carrying" and "holding"?

Presumably the same line between holding_character and carrying. Which is terribly arbitrary.

The real distinction between holding and carrying is that carrying is with the intention to move it somewhere, while holding is just... holding. That, however, is reasonably difficult to tell in a static image.

I'm currently in a public place, so instead of using furry porn as examples I'll find some wonderful safe-for-work stock images.

1 2 3

All these examples clearly show something that is being carried - they're not just holding these things for fun.

4 5 6

These are however examples of only holding the object. Their intention of holding it isn't to carry it anywhere, it's to use the object for its intended purpose. Carrying an object is always holding, but holding an object is not always carrying.

---

However, using that definition would likely invalidate a good portion of the current carrying usage. Especially tags like the stand and carry position which isn't actually carrying the character anywhere.

I really don't like the fact that carrying doesn't include objects when people would expect it to, so aliasing it to carrying_another might be the least worst option here. People will still end up misusing it, but at least the tag name will be self-descriptive enough for anybody who actually looks at the autocompletion previews when they're tagging a post.

themasterpotato said:
I feel like carrying is more prone to mistagging, so perhaps the allias should go the other way around. Or perhaps both should be aliased to carrying_character, using the same format as holding_character, which is mentioned on the wiki page of carrying.
I'm not a big fan of tags that have a more specific definition than someone would expect from only reading the tag itself, and since carrying in everyday speech refers to both people and objects, going against that just seems like it will only lead to more work from having to fix mistags.

I agree. Flip it around. It's going to come up with suggestions when typing "carry", anyways. While we're at it, alias carrying_other -> carrying_another. I'm pretty sure the another/other thing was in my tagging notes for things to later deal with aliasing.

Lifting another (like the 'pick me up' trope for kids or pets) is not the same as carrying, but it should be noted in Wiki that they're related, alongside holding/carrying objects. AFAIK, in normal English, holding implies 'holding (while) still', and carrying implies holding while moving, but unless it's animated or has motion lines or running pose or something, you can't tell the difference. Probably should make it clear that lifting anything implies bending over or pulling it from the ground, even if that's obvious. :shrugs:
Faucet:

The real distinction between holding and carrying is that carrying is with the intention to move it somewhere, while holding is just... holding. That, however, is reasonably difficult to tell in a static image.

Right... oops, you mentioned that.

stand_and_carry_position This is just one of those "technically" incorrect figures of speech that we can live with, since it's unlikely to be mistagged?

stupidmelon said:
On a tangential note, does any of these tags cover the case of an animal holding another (e.g. their young or a prey) with their mouth? I have used body_in_mouth but that seems a bit too unspecific.

Yeah, might as well get to adding that in Wiki, too. Carrying_with_mouth? LOL, this example is technically not vore: https://e621.net/posts/4378669?q=carrying_with_mouth
The only example for holding_with_mouth should probably be carrying under the earlier reasoning: https://e621.net/posts/4302124?q=holding_with_mouth It had a ton of tags like that: https://e621.net/post_versions?search%5Bpost_id%5D=4302124
Should probably alias falling_clothing and clothes_falling and clothing_falling and falling_clothes to clothes_falling_off.

The bulk update request #5718 is active.

create alias falling_clothes (6) -> clothes_falling_off (75)

Reason: "Should probably alias falling_clothing and clothes_falling and clothing_falling and falling_clothes to clothes_falling_off."
These are all meaning the same thing. <-> These all mean the same thing. <-> These mean entirely the same thing. ;)

EDIT: The bulk update request #5718 (forum #379844) has been approved by @slyroon.

The tag alias carrying_another -> carrying (forum #379786) has been rejected by @SNPtheCat.

topic #40952

The bulk update request #5718 (forum #379844) has been approved by @slyroon.