I just tried to add human_raping_feral to the post and was told it's an invalid tag. There's no wiki description, so I thought I'd ask for an explanation here.
Topic: Why is human_raping_feral invalid?
Posted under Tag/Wiki Projects and Questions
beholding said:
I just tried to add human_raping_feral to the post and was told it's an invalid tag. There's no wiki description, so I thought I'd ask for an explanation here.
My guess would be https://e621.net/forum_topics/39327
There's feral_raping_human, presumably the same user created that tag as well?
Slyroon did some independent cleanup of some tags
I disagree with changing it to invalid. There's a perfectly valid target to alias it to: human_rape, human_raping or if we don't want tags of the type [form]_rap*, we could alias it to human
The rape tags are rather underdeveloped, i've gotta say. I'm sure there's a rape BUR and an argument about deciding to use *_raping/*_rape
Updated
The bulk update request #12605 is pending approval.
change category human_raping_feral (0) -> general
Reason: While we don't want combination tags for form_action_form, invalidating them is not the way to go
It can simply be aliased to the appropriate tag, it doesn't need to be moved out of the Invalid category first, letting people use it unimpeded.
watsit said:
It can simply be aliased to the appropriate tag, it doesn't need to be moved out of the Invalid category first, letting people use it unimpeded.
That aliasing will not happen in a long time.
And it will be a relatively small tag: human rapist, human raping and human rape all collectively have under 10000 posts, so the category will be transferred over
There's nothing wrong with using it at the moment, especially when the rape implication tree is pretty nascent, and where would you direct the users looking for the tag? Especially if it's going to be aliased later with a (potentially) different destination.
Yeah maybe it'll affect <3 posts where the tagger might include feral_raped after seeing the tag is invalid
Updated
There's some ancient tagging project I was involved in, but being on a phone is making it a pain to do stuff like this.
I don't understand why we can't have *_raping_* tags? I know we want to keep noun_verbing_noun tags to a minimum to reduce tag bloat, but if we're keeping *_penetrating_* I don't see why we can't keep this too. Like penetrating, rape is a verb where the order of operations is relevant.
beholding said:
I don't understand why we can't have *_raping_* tags? I know we want to keep noun_verbing_noun tags to a minimum to reduce tag bloat, but if we're keeping *_penetrating_* I don't see why we can't keep this too. Like penetrating, rape is a verb where the order of operations is relevant.
Having x_verbing_y tags leads to excess tags since you can have almost any act for a verb, and all pairings of x and y for a particular type (sex or form). This has also led to mixed-type tags cropping up, like male_penetrating_feral and anthro_penetrating_female. This is rather excessive when the separate x_verbing and y_verbed tags are good enough.
People gave wondered if x_penetrating_y is worth getting rid of too, but the consensus seems to be that penetration is worth keeping as a special case given how widely they're used and relied on for their implications. But the mixed-type <gender>_penetrating_<form> and <form>_penetrating_<gender> tags should still go too, leaving just <gender>_penetrating_<gender> and <form>_penetrating_<form> as the only "valid" x_verbing_y tags.
watsit said:
Having x_verbing_y tags leads to excess tags since you can have almost any act for a verb, and all pairings of x and y for a particular type (sex or form). This has also led to mixed-type tags cropping up, like male_penetrating_feral and anthro_penetrating_female. This is rather excessive when the separate x_verbing and y_verbed tags are good enough.People gave wondered if x_penetrating_y is worth getting rid of too, but the consensus seems to be that penetration is worth keeping as a special case given how widely they're used and relied on for their implications. But the mixed-type <gender>_penetrating_<form> and <form>_penetrating_<gender> tags should still go too, leaving just <gender>_penetrating_<gender> and <form>_penetrating_<form> as the only "valid" x_verbing_y tags.
I know, but my argument is that it's worth carving out an exception for raping as well, because it's also widely used. (That said, I wouldn't object to removing x_penetrating_y tags too.)
beholding said:
I know, but my argument is that it's worth carving out an exception for raping as well, because it's also widely used. (That said, I wouldn't object to removing x_penetrating_y tags too.)
Eh, *_raping_* tags aren't that widely used, penetrating is much more prominent.
X_penetrating_Y is useful for finding rarer pairings than what's common. Once upon a time, human/anthro and human/feral gay pairings were nearly always: human bottoms, nonhuman tops. *_penetrating_* let's you find the reverse a lot easier. Which for people like me who like to see humans top is a godsend.
thirtyeight said:
X_penetrating_Y is useful for finding rarer pairings than what's common. Once upon a time, human/anthro and human/feral gay pairings were nearly always: human bottoms, nonhuman tops. *_penetrating_* let's you find the reverse a lot easier. Which for people like me who like to see humans top is a godsend.
You could also find those with the search human_penetrating anthro_penetrated, though, couldn't you?
beholding said:
I know, but my argument is that it's worth carving out an exception for raping as well, because it's also widely used. (That said, I wouldn't object to removing x_penetrating_y tags too.)
You can still achieve the same result in 99% of cases by using x_penetrating_y rape. That's the entire purpose of decomposing the vast majority of these & preserving this 1 upstream combination. Not that I'm particularly attached to preserving it, but the reason it has been preserved is as an effective middleground that's also simpler to tag; remember, the more tedious & intricate tagging is for a given subject, the lower the overall quality of tagging for it. As a rule of thumb, it's better to offload complexity from tagging onto searches; make tags simple & consistently applied & have users compose complex queries on them instead of making simpler queries by promoting increasingly specific & complex tags that are consequently tagged more inconsistently.
aacafah said:
You can still achieve the same result in 99% of cases by using x_penetrating_y rape.
Not if the rapist is the penetrated partner. That's niche, yes, but I'd wager it's more than 1%. I can see your logic, but I'm not sure it holds up under scrutiny.
beholding said:
Not if the rapist is the penetrated partner.
x_raping and y_raped are sufficiently adequate to use in place of x_raping_y, which also covers non-penetrative rape. Both are prone to not knowing who the rapist is for same-sex rape, but for that, there's power_bottom rape. No need for x_raping_y.
Additionally, even if there weren't subtags, the solution wouldn't be to add x2 tags, it'd be to add a tag for that specific situation. reverse_rape has been aliased to rape, but either making an functional equivalent/alternative tag or requesting to unalias it would be far more sensible than this.
Yes, I know, it's not a permutation, it's a combination, so it'd be less than x2; you get the point.
watsit said:
x_raping and y_raped are sufficiently adequate to use in place of x_raping_y, which also covers non-penetrative rape. Both are prone to not knowing who the rapist is for same-sex rape, but for that, there's power_bottom rape. No need for x_raping_y.
I know, my point is why we don't apply this logic to x_penetrating_y. The only argument presented so far is that it's helpful for combination tags, but as I just said, that's not actually true, and is better served by the tags you mentioned.
beholding said:
I know, my point is why we don't apply this logic to x_penetrating_y. The only argument presented so far is that it's helpful for combination tags, but as I just said, that's not actually true, and is better served by the tags you mentioned.
IIRC, *_penetrating_* was the first of the *_verbing_* tags to be implemented and it was fine for a while.
Then, people started creating all sorts of combinations on their own, including unconventional combos like <gender>_verbing_<form> and vice versa, and we soon realise this is not sustainable (see topic #36869) and discussions went ahead to remove them (see topic #42656 & topic #43775) which resulted in an unresolved impasse.
IMO, it wouldn't hurt to keep *_penetrating_* since it's been around the longest and forms a major portion of sex, which can be categorised as 'penetrative' or 'non-penetrative'. Anything else is just too specific or too niche (e.g., *_birthing_*) for the majority of people to be searching for them.
thegreatwolfgang said:
Then, people started creating all sorts of combinations on their own, including unconventional combos like <gender>_verbing_<form> and vice versa, and we soon realise this is not sustainable (see topic #36869) and discussions went ahead to remove them (see topic #42656 & topic #43775) which resulted in an unresolved impasse.
I feel like this is only going to continue as long as x_penetrating_y exists. It sends the message that other x_verbing_y tags are valid, and too few users are going to read through the deep forum lore to know otherwise. I advocate we tear the problem out by the root.
beholding said:
I feel like this is only going to continue as long as x_penetrating_y exists. It sends the message that other x_verbing_y tags are valid, and too few users are going to read through the deep forum lore to know otherwise. I advocate we tear the problem out by the root.
Removing a well established set of tags because people can't be bothered to read wikis is not a reasonable solution
donovan_dmc said:
Removing a well established set of tags because people can't be bothered to read wikis is not a reasonable solution
The janitors seem to disagree with you there. This would also require the wiki pages to state that x_penetrating_y is the only allowed x_verbing_y tag in the first place, which they currently don't.
beholding said:
The janitors seem to disagree with you there. Ignoring a known problem is not a reasonable solution either.
Them being a janitor hardly seems relevant, and that situation is wildly different from anything happening here
donovan_dmc said:
Them being a janitor hardly seems relevant, and that situation is wildly different from anything happening here
Please explain how the known problem that users don't read wikis before using tags isn't relevant here.
beholding said:
I feel like this is only going to continue as long as x_penetrating_y exists. It sends the message that other x_verbing_y tags are valid, and too few users are going to read through the deep forum lore to know otherwise. I advocate we tear the problem out by the root.
It's kinda related to the issue I brought up on topic #43680 in regard to "precedence setting precedence" or "since X exists, we should also have Y".
It will still happen regardless with any established tag/tag combos and removing them just because people are copycats will do more harm than good.
We ought to be more proactive instead and shut down any dubious tags we come across before they get out of hand.
So, wouldn't this just be equivalent to human_rape feral_raped bestiality?
thegreatwolfgang said:
It's kinda related to the issue I brought up on topic #43680 in regard to "precedence setting precedence" or "since X exists, we should also have Y".It will still happen regardless with any established tag/tag combos and removing them just because people are copycats will do more harm than good.
We ought to be more proactive instead and shut down any dubious tags we come across before they get out of hand.
Sorry, I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly. Are you arguing for removing x_penetrating_y or against?
beholding said:
Please explain how the known problem that users don't read wikis before using tags isn't relevant here.
It's irrelevant because users who mistag due to not reading the wiki pages get records, & if they continue, bans. That problem inherently requires constant maintenance, & I somehow doubt ditching x_penetrating_y is gonna change that.
Regardless, the initial question has been answered; I've also told you why this is even less valid than x_penetrating_y. If you want to invalidate all x_penetrating_y, it's not moving forward unless someone puts in a request, & I'd rather that discussion be quarantined to a relevant BUR's thread.
beholding said:
Sorry, I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly. Are you arguing for removing x_penetrating_y or against?
I'm for keeping <form>_penetrating_<form> and <gender>_penetrating_<gender> as the sole exception.
I'm against mildly against more *_verbing_* tags (unless I see compelling justification) and strongly against <form>_verbing_<gender>/<gender>_verbing_<form> (since we really don't need conflating the two together).