The bulk update request #6708 is pending approval.

remove implication male_penetrating_feral (4068) -> male_on_feral (27435)
remove implication feral_penetrating_male (1001) -> male_on_feral (27435)

Reason: I believe these tags are redundant and silly. They were made to get around the lack of <gender>_<form>, and now we have <gender>_<form>. You can search for a male human fucking a female anthro with male_human female_anthro male_penetrating_female or similar now, we don't need all this.

Starting with x_penetrating_y. I don't like <gender>_on_<form> either, I'm pretty sure it's also redundant now due to <gender>_<form>, but if we do end up keeping *_on_* then I can change all these aliases to target *_on_* instead of *_penetrating.

After:

alias male_penetrating_feral -> male_on_feral
alias feral_penetrating_male -> male_on_feral

The bulk update request #6709 has been rejected.

Reason: followup
topic #40128 would need to be rejected first

EDIT: The bulk update request #6709 (forum #392039) has been rejected by @Cloudpie.

The bulk update request #6710 has been rejected.

Reason: followup

EDIT: The bulk update request #6710 (forum #392040) has been rejected by @Cloudpie.

The bulk update request #6711 has been rejected.

Reason: followup

<gender>_on_<form>/<form>_on_<gender> needs some additional prep since a lot of those have implications already

EDIT: The bulk update request #6711 (forum #392041) has been rejected by @Cloudpie.

cloudpie said:
Reason: I believe these tags are redundant and silly. They were made to get around the lack of <gender>_<form>, and now we have <gender>_<form>. You can search for a male human fucking a female anthro with male_human female_anthro male_penetrating_female or similar now, we don't need all this.

This does not technically mean the image contains that since multiple subjects are available in an image. This would only work for duo, and probably trio but as soon as you get to groups that is ambiguous. Personally these tags are fine imo and are hurting no one and only allow people to find what they want accurately.

definitelynotafurry4 said:
This does not technically mean the image contains that since multiple subjects are available in an image. This would only work for duo, and probably trio but as soon as you get to groups that is ambiguous. Personally these tags are fine imo and are hurting no one and only allow people to find what they want accurately.

we kinda need to draw the line on what gets tagged at some point, and I think "mixed-category penetration pairing" is pretty far over the line of what kind of tags we generally consider valid. I mean, the shared category x/p/y tags are _already_ pretty borderline.

sipothac said:
we kinda need to draw the line on what gets tagged at some point, and I think "mixed-category penetration pairing" is pretty far over the line of what kind of tags we generally consider valid. I mean, the shared category x/p/y tags are _already_ pretty borderline.

What are your thoughts on <gender>_on_<form>? Not verbing, just on. I personally think they're overkill as well

cloudpie said:
What are your thoughts on <gender>_on_<form>? Not verbing, just on. I personally think they're overkill as well

honestly, it seems like it'd be inconsistent but... with bestiality being its own distinct fetish, the <gender>_on_feral tags are like the only ones that I feel are kind of useful. they kinda feel like they're in a similar vein to the older_<gender/form> in relation to age difference and cub content.

I mean, there's of a reason those are the ones that have been around the longest, with male_on_feral being first added over 10 years ago _{by some user named "Rainbow Dash",} with the first instance of female_on_anthro only showing up several years later, and all of the other <gender>_on_<form> tags being even later additions.

EDIT: I also think that <gender>_on_feral were the only tags consistently added by real users. I'm pretty sure that a large portion of the population of a lot of these tags were done by bots, with Haryldson's extensive bot edits, for example, accounting for tens of thousands of the posts tagged <gender>_on_<form>, but fewer than 1000 each for the <gender>_on_feral tags, despite those tags being some of the most populous.

sipothac said:
honestly, it seems like it'd be inconsistent but... with bestiality being its own distinct fetish, the <gender>_on_feral tags are like the only ones that I feel are kind of useful. they kinda feel like they're in a similar vein to the older_<gender/form> in relation to age difference and cub content.

I mean, there's of a reason those are the ones that have been around the longest, with male_on_feral being first added over 10 years ago _{by some user named "Rainbow Dash",} with the first instance of female_on_anthro only showing up several years later, and all of the other <gender>_on_<form> tags being even later additions.

EDIT: I also think that <gender>_on_feral were the only tags consistently added by real users. I'm pretty sure that a large portion of the population of a lot of these tags were done by bots, with Haryldson's extensive bot edits, for example, accounting for tens of thousands of the posts tagged <gender>_on_<form>, but fewer than 1000 each for the <gender>_on_feral tags, despite those tags being some of the most populous.

I don't think the time a tag was first used has any real bearing on whether it's useful to keep. Personally I find (and tag when relevant) <gender>_on_anthro also useful, and I don't think <gender>_<form> tags are that great of an alternative. Since <gender>_on_<form> means "<gender> of non-<form> on <form> of any <gender>", that would be a long list of x_on_<form> + <gender>_x tags to act as an alternative (where x is every form other than <form>), which also starts falling apart when there's more than two characters.

To be clear, I'm in full support of getting rid of <form>_<verbing>_<gender> and <gender>_<verbing>_<form>, but it may be better to alias them to <gender>_on_<form>. Funny enough, I've often seen posts tagged <form>_penetrating_<gender> and/or <gender>_penetrating_<form>, but not <gender>_on_<form>, probably due to a faulty assumption of implications that don't/didn't exist.

watsit said:
I don't think the time a tag was first used has any real bearing on whether it's useful to keep. Personally I find (and tag when relevant) <gender>_on_anthro also useful, and I don't think <gender>_<form> tags are that great of an alternative. Since <gender>_on_<form> means "<gender> of non-<form> on <form> of any <gender>", that would be a long list of x_on_<form> + <gender>_x tags to act as an alternative (where x is every form other than <form>), which also starts falling apart when there's more than two characters.

I mean just female_on_feral and male_on_feral are over 50k posts by themselves, and are actively used and provide useful search utility. I literally see no real reason to get rid of them. The ones in this BUR are whatever, they have few uses and even less utility, but x_on_y tags are quite useful for searching and blacklisting specific fetishes.

definitelynotafurry4 said:
This does not technically mean the image contains that since multiple subjects are available in an image. This would only work for duo, and probably trio but as soon as you get to groups that is ambiguous. Personally these tags are fine imo and are hurting no one and only allow people to find what they want accurately.

I personally use them to make sure I hit all the implications, AND to deal with the group situation. Oh right, was thinking gender_penetrating_gender. There's a reason that the backlog for solo cub tagging is pretty much done, but the duo is not, and trio/group is a lost cause. Making sure that male_penetrating_feral -male_penetrating -feral_penetrated is handled before aliasing is main thing for that tag (and related), right? Male_penetrating and feral_penetrated should obviously have implications of male/feral/penetration and if male_penetrating_feral becomes male_on_feral, then that also implies male/feral.

If male_penetrat(ed/ing) and feral_penetrat(ed/ing) are already implicated on existing posts by male_penetrating_feral, does removing the implication and aliasing male_penetrating_feral to male_on_feral leave them intact?

The issue with ambiguity on more than 2 characters can be checked using some strategic searches like that one above but aimed for groups.

The bulk update request #6714 is pending approval.

Reason: Alternative BUR for separate voting, in case we do want to keep gender_on_form. I still don't like them personally but I guess I can understand the argument for them.

And of course x_on_y would need implications etc, i'll write all that later if this option is chosen

topic #35535 looks like gender_on_form is being kept then

The bulk update request #6709 (forum #392039) has been rejected by @Cloudpie.

The bulk update request #6710 (forum #392040) has been rejected by @Cloudpie.

The bulk update request #6711 (forum #392041) has been rejected by @Cloudpie.

The bulk update request #6742 is pending approval.

Reason: continued

The bulk update request #6743 is pending approval.

Reason: continued

We still don't have most of the gender_form tags, which would be required for these to be truly redundant.

scth said:
We still don't have most of the gender_form tags, which would be required for these to be truly redundant.

What do you mean? Gender_form was approved recently. We have them all now, don't we?

cloudpie said:
The bulk update request #6743 is pending approval.

create alias human_penetrating_andromorph (19) -> andromorph_on_human (70)
create alias human_penetrating_herm (17) -> herm_on_human (106)
create alias human_penetrating_maleherm (3) -> maleherm_on_human (6)
create alias humanoid_penetrating_male (190) -> male_on_humanoid (11720)
create alias humanoid_penetrating_female (606) -> female_on_humanoid (3334)
create alias humanoid_penetrating_gynomorph (16) -> gynomorph_on_humanoid (378)
create alias humanoid_penetrating_andromorph (3) -> andromorph_on_humanoid (9)
create alias humanoid_penetrating_herm (4) -> herm_on_humanoid (33)
create alias humanoid_penetrating_maleherm (0) -> maleherm_on_humanoid (0)
create alias intersex_penetrating_anthro (298) -> intersex_on_anthro (517)
create alias intersex_penetrating_feral (46) -> intersex_on_feral (1076)
create alias intersex_penetraring_taur (0) -> intersex_on_taur (26)
create alias intersex_penetrating_human (334) -> intersex_on_human (1568)
create alias intersex_penetrating_humanoid (118) -> intersex_on_humanoid (423)
create alias anthro_penetrating_intersex (117) -> intersex_on_anthro (517)
create alias feral_penetrating_intersex (20) -> intersex_on_feral (1076)
create alias taur_penetrating_intersex (6) -> intersex_on_taur (26)
create alias human_penetrating_intersex (68) -> intersex_on_human (1568)
create alias humanoid_penetrating_intersex (20) -> intersex_on_humanoid (423)

Reason: continued

Lmao the two BURs switched places

snpthecat said:
Lmao the two BURs switched places

Worse, the site is getting them all mixed up. That particular BUR appears in both topic #42656 and topic #38939, but both BUR #6743 and BUR #5026 show as having the same create alias sex_from_behind (3) -> from_behind_position (143739) script, the former pending and the latter active. Something got really fubar'd.

watsit said:

BUR #6743 and BUR #5026 show as having the same create alias sex_from_behind (3) -> from_behind_position (143739)

It shows as such in the message, but if you visit the BUR page directly, it shows the []_penetrating_[] aliases, one pending, one approved, and different estimates

snpthecat said:
It shows as such in the message, but if you visit the BUR page directly, it shows the []_penetrating_[] aliases

Not for me. https://e621.net/bulk_update_requests/6743 shows:

Bulk Update Request:

Reference topic #42656
Creator Cloudpie
Date 2024-02-23 15:06:23 -0800
Status: pending
Estimate: 391

Script

create alias sex_from_behind (3) -> from_behind_position (143739)

And https://e621.net/bulk_update_requests/5026 shows:

Bulk Update Request: Sex from behind BUR

Reference topic #38939
Creator Watsit
Date 2023-06-13 19:47:05 -0700
Status: approved
Estimate: 143714

Script

create alias sex_from_behind (3) -> from_behind_position (143739)

But it seems the post in topic #38939 got fixed and is showing the correct alias now.

and for me https://e621.net/bulk_update_requests/6743 shows:

And https://e621.net/bulk_update_requests/5026 shows:

Bumping this since it seems there's been a bit of a tagging spree with some of them. human_penetrating_female has over 11k uses (more than human_penetrating_feral, which is at 10k), and male_penetrating_anthro is over 17k. male_penetrating_human is over 5k, anthro_penetrating_female is over 4k, and feral_penetrating_female is over 3k. Is there some hope of seeing one set of these BURs being applied in the foreseeable future?

watsit said:
Bumping this since it seems there's been a bit of a tagging spree with some of them. human_penetrating_female has over 11k uses (more than human_penetrating_feral, which is at 10k), and male_penetrating_anthro is over 17k. male_penetrating_human is over 5k, anthro_penetrating_female is over 4k, and feral_penetrating_female is over 3k. Is there some hope of seeing one set of these BURs being applied in the foreseeable future?

Tagging projects are growing like weeds? *gets a shovel* :grin:

I think I'm starting to lean toward the original (now rejected) BURs of aliasing x_verbing_y to x_verbing, as I've been seeing an increasing number of mistags with these. Many male_penetrating_anthro and/or anthro_penetrating_male when they're both anthro, not mixed form as intended. Aliasing such to male_on_anthro would keep/cause more mistags from this misuse, while aliasing them to male_penetrating and/or anthro_penetrating would result in correct tags despite misuse.