The bulk update request #5870 is pending approval.

create alias anal_oviposition (443) -> egg_from_anus (0)
create alias cloacal_oviposition (0) -> egg_from_cloaca (122)
create alias nipple_oviposition (46) -> egg_from_nipples (39)
create alias oral_oviposition (76) -> egg_from_mouth (63)
create alias urethral_oviposition (230) -> egg_from_urethra (150) # duplicate of has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through bur
create alias vaginal_oviposition (81) -> egg_from_pussy (1383) # duplicate of alias #63206
create alias penile_oviposition (14) -> egg_from_penis (77)
create implication egg_from_penis (77) -> egg_from_urethra (150)

Reason: The egg_from_* tags are the official ones, already being implicated to oviposition. Egg_from_penis still needs the implication, though. It should imply egg_from_urethra since that's really the only place on a penis an egg can come from, right? (reminder: pussies have urethras as well and the egg_from_urethra tag covers both)

At least anal_oviposition, oral_oviposition and vaginal_oviposition tagged posts should first be weeded out from what should be egg_in_anus, egg_in_mouth and egg_in_pussy, as there is quite a bit of interpreting the oviposition tags this way.

(In a similar fashion, penile_penetration doesn't actually belong with vaginal_penetration and anal_penetration. That's another discussion that just shares the ambiguosity of a set of tags with the one apparently being resolved here.)

I'm not sure which way would be better, really. But egg_from_nipples should definitely be egg_from_nipple instead, if we decide to go that route. An egg might only be coming from one nipple and not the other.

scaliespe said:
I'm not sure which way would be better, really. But egg_from_nipples should definitely be egg_from_nipple instead, if we decide to go that route. An egg might only be coming from one nipple and not the other.

I agree, I just wrote it this way because egg_from_nipples already implies oviposition. Maybe an alias request could come after for egg_from_nipples -> egg_from_nipple

On second thought, I personally think making the *_oviposition tags standard would be preferable. Not only would they better match the base oviposition tag, but I think it would better distinguish them from the egg_insertion tags like egg_in_pussy and egg_in_anus. A tag like vaginal_oviposition makes it much clearer that the egg is actually being laid and not just stuck in there. I know, all the implications already exist the other way around... I still think that would be a better name though.

scaliespe said:
On second thought, I personally think making the *_oviposition tags standard would be preferable. Not only would they better match the base oviposition tag, but I think it would better distinguish them from the egg_insertion tags like egg_in_pussy and egg_in_anus. A tag like vaginal_oviposition makes it much clearer that the egg is actually being laid and not just stuck in there. I know, all the implications already exist the other way around... I still think that would be a better name though.

I actually disagree. People might use oviposition when they mean insertion in that case. (I accidentally made topic #41576, which has some additions to this one) - many of the tags are already considered defunct.

catt0s said:
I actually disagree. People might use oviposition when they mean insertion in that case. (I accidentally made topic #41576, which has some additions to this one) - many of the tags are already considered defunct.

I don't really see how oviposition can be confused for insertion. Those are two very different and unrelated words. I think it's much more likely that people will confuse egg_in_pussy with egg_from_pussy. Those sound extremely similar, and I know I've confused them myself before.

Very bad idea to alias these, and I'm speaking as the person who made the egg_in_* and egg_from_* tags in the first place (see BUR #57). x_oviposition and x_egg_insertion carry additionnal context that should have them be the prefered tags for manual use. Consider how egg_from_mouth, despite the current implication of oviposition (which should IMO be removed, see BUR #2190), is hardly ever used to portray actual oviposition, and is vastly more common as a consequence of egg_through, or how having an egg coming out following egg_insertion is probably not valid as oviposition, either.

Implications, sure, but aliasing would lose valuable distinctions between the two tag sets. The only downside I've had with "standardizing" the likes of urethral_oviposition over the years is that people tend to use it as if it meant urethral_egg_insertion instead, which requires occasional cleanup.

At any rate, -1 from me in this BUR's current form.

fifteen said:
Very bad idea to alias these, and I'm speaking as the person who made the egg_in_* and egg_from_* tags in the first place (see BUR #57). x_oviposition and x_egg_insertion carry additionnal context that should have them be the prefered tags for manual use. Consider how egg_from_mouth, despite the current implication of oviposition (which should IMO be removed, see BUR #2190), is hardly ever used to portray actual oviposition, and is vastly more common as a consequence of egg_through, or how having an egg coming out following egg_insertion is probably not valid as oviposition, either.

Implications, sure, but aliasing would lose valuable distinctions between the two tag sets. The only downside I've had with "standardizing" the likes of urethral_oviposition over the years is that people tend to use it as if it meant urethral_egg_insertion instead, which requires occasional cleanup.

At any rate, -1 from me in this BUR's current form.

Understandable. How do we fix it though? Something needs to be done with the oviposition tags

cloudpie said:
Understandable. How do we fix it though? Something needs to be done with the oviposition tags

IMO, it should go something like this:

1. Undo BUR 57
2. Have the x_oviposituon and x_egg_insertion tags imply oviposituon and egg_insertion instead
3. Maybe have x_oviposition and x_egg_insertion imply egg_from_x and egg_in_x, if it can be established that there are no exceptions there

However, with regards to egg_in_x -> x_egg_insertion, "egg_in" is weaker than "egg_from" (the egg could be coming in, coming out, or just ambiguously there), and other tags like cum_in_ and cum_from_ are usually setup such that one implies the other. Given we have x_egg_insertion nowadays, I wouldn't be opposed to changing the in/from setup to be more in line with other similar tags, since we wouldn't lose information in that regard.

So then, we would have:

1. Undo bur 57
2. Make sure all the egg_in and egg_from posts have the appropriate oviposituon or insertion tags
3. Have all egg_from_x tags imply egg_in_x
4. Have x_oviposition imply the respective egg_from_x and the base oviposition tag
5. Have x_egg_insertion imply the respective egg_in_x and the base egg_insertion tag

IMO, having separate per-orifice tags for egg-going-in-x, egg-coming-out-of-x, and egg-within-x is overkill. Nipples, pussy, anus, urethra, tail, mouth, and tentacle, would be 21 tags, then add three more for every additional orifice some artist can think of (ears? nose? eyes? wound?).

I think it would be sufficient to have just egg-within-x tags with egg_insertion and egg_laying/oviposition.

watsit said:
IMO, having separate per-orifice tags for egg-going-in-x, egg-coming-out-of-x, and egg-within-x is overkill. Nipples, pussy, anus, urethra, tail, mouth, and tentacle, would be 21 tags, then add three more for every additional orifice some artist can think of (ears? nose? eyes? wound?).

I think it would be sufficient to have just egg-within-x tags with egg_insertion and egg_laying/oviposition.

Not saying we need to add new "egg going in" tags to fill in the role that egg_in_x currently fills, just that I personally wouldn't mind widening egg_in_x to be properly homologous to how in/from pairs work elsewhere. We already have everything covered with our current set of tags, we just need to reorganize them slightly.

If you meant we shoukd prune tags, I disagree. These tags have been around and well established for years now, and like I've said, they all (should) have specific places with specific nuances. I don't think removing any would be a good idea at this time.