BUR #30601 has been approved by @nonamethanks.
create implication spreading_own_pussy -> spread_pussy
create implication spreading_another's_pussy -> spread_pussy
create implication half-spread_pussy -> spread_pussy
Self explanatory.
Posted under Tags
BUR #30601 has been approved by @nonamethanks.
create implication spreading_own_pussy -> spread_pussy
create implication spreading_another's_pussy -> spread_pussy
create implication half-spread_pussy -> spread_pussy
Self explanatory.
BUR #30602 has been approved by @nonamethanks.
remove implication spread_pussy -> pussy
create implication spread_pussy_under_clothes -> spread_pussy
Not as self explanatory.
The wikis for spread_pussy_under_clothes and spread_pussy state that they're supposed to be mutually exclusive if the pussy can't be seen, which is going about as well as you might expect. Stuff like post #7725501, post #7578744 and post #7004804 are routinely tagged with both by users who rightfully assume that both should apply. The reason for the mutual exclusivity clause in the wikis is that spread_pussy implies pussy, meaning it causes mistags when added to posts like the ones I linked. As such, this implication should be removed.
If you need even more reasons, there's also the occasional post #5220344 - even though the pussy is completely covered by the censorship and therefore shouldn't be tagged, it's still very obvious that it's being spread. Once again, spread_pussy is erroneously adding the pussy tag through its shortsighted implication.
The bulk update request #30601 (forum #304062) has been approved by @nonamethanks.
The idea that spread pussy under clothes or heavily censored genitals shouldn't get tagged with pussy is imo pointless to pursue in a site like this. Nobody's going to care enough to garden it to the point where it makes a difference due to the size of the tag, and I don't believe most people searching for pussy explicitly want to exclude obviously spread pussies that happen to have a thin layer of fabric covering them, or even censored pussies.
nonamethanks said:
The idea that spread pussy under clothes or heavily censored genitals shouldn't get tagged with pussy is imo pointless to pursue in a site like this. Nobody's going to care enough to garden it to the point where it makes a difference due to the size of the tag, and I don't believe most people searching for pussy explicitly want to exclude obviously spread pussies that happen to have a thin layer of fabric covering them, or even censored pussies.
Essentially what you're saying is that it's fine to have posts tagged pussy where you can't see a pussy. If I'm searching for pussy then I'm explicitly avoiding posts like post #7373717, post #5732530, post #7869705, post #7853768, post #5774344 and so on. I'm looking for posts with the goods, not posts with "oooh, it's right under here!! if only you could see it!!!".
Also, there's already precedent for this sort of thing. Because of the existence of erection_under_clothes, erection doesn't imply penis for essentially the exact same reason. This BUR should be approved; there is no point in arbitrarily picking and choosing when this reasoning applies.
AngryZapdos said:
Essentially what you're saying is that it's fine to have posts tagged pussy where you can't see a pussy. If I'm searching for pussy then I'm explicitly avoiding posts like post #7373717, post #5732530, post #7869705, post #7853768, post #5774344 and so on. I'm looking for posts with the goods, not posts with "oooh, it's right under here!! if only you could see it!!!".
Also, there's already precedent for this sort of thing. Because of the existence of erection_under_clothes, erection doesn't imply penis for essentially the exact same reason. This BUR should be approved; there is no point in arbitrarily picking and choosing when this reasoning applies.
Well those posts are much different, you should've opened with those. But I find the idea that post #5220344 should not be tagged with pussy to be absurd. We might as well not tag blank censor penises with penis.
nonamethanks said:
Well those posts are much different, you should've opened with those. But I find the idea that post #5220344 should not be tagged with pussy to be absurd. We might as well not tag blank censor penises with penis.
I guess it's a bit different when there's nothing actually covering it. I'll concede on the point about censored pussies.
The bulk update request #30602 (forum #304063) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.
The bulk update request #30602 (forum #304063) has been approved by @nonamethanks.