Implicating morning_wood -> erection.

Reason: self-evident

I agree with this 100 percent. Although, maybe it would be better as an alias? I don't really know, but it makes more sense as an alias, to me.

JoeX said:
I agree with this 100 percent. Although, maybe it would be better as an alias? I don't really know, but it makes more sense as an alias, to me.

Morning wood has a separate concept than erection alone, I think it's good to leave it as implication.

It does seem like it's actually being properly tagged so far, there's definitely a common theme among images that show up as search results for it right now. I think an implication would work fine, as long as morning_wood keeps getting tagged like it has been.

I'm just going to revive this thread, I hope that's the right thing to do?...

I'm just wondering about posts found under morning_wood -penis (like post #14421 for example) that only show bulges/tenting with no visible penis/erection. Sure, it's just a low percentage and morning_wood doesn't seem like a very frequent tag anyways... I just thought I'd mention this.

Because I'd say this implication isn't always correct because of erection only getting tagged on visible erections. Could also be tenting or bulge or penis_outline.

Emserdalf said:
I'm just going to revive this thread, I hope that's the right thing to do?...

I'm just wondering about posts found under morning_wood -penis (like post #14421 for example) that only show bulges/tenting with no visible penis/erection. Sure, it's just a low percentage and morning_wood doesn't seem like a very frequent tag anyways... I just thought I'd mention this.

Because I'd say this implication isn't always correct because of erection only getting tagged on visible erections. Could also be tenting or bulge or penis_outline.

erection used to implicate penis but that got deleted because of tags like this, however they never actually got cleaned up after the fact. For those posts the erection tag is correct, but the penis tag isn't (assuming you can't actually see it).

parasprite said:
erection used to implicate penis but that got deleted because of tags like this, however they never actually got cleaned up after the fact. For those posts the erection tag is correct, but the penis tag isn't (assuming you can't actually see it).

Oh! But the wiki page for erection states "Not to be used for when an erection is implied, but not visibly depicted. For this, use bulge, tenting or visible_penis_outline." so I was going through a bunch of rating:q stuff (tenting an such) and removing it because I thought it was visible erections... whoops.
_{(i.e. explicitly visible erection instead of visibly (implied) erect penis)}

So it's pretty much:
Visible, erect penis: erection, penis
obscured but well implied erection: erection and possibly tenting or erection_under_clothes?

Speaking of which, that last one could be aliased to tenting, eh? I was gonna create an alias suggestion for it but wasn't sure about its implication of erection.

Edit: So really, the description on erection needs to be changed... The fact that it doesn't imply penis means that it's also for erections that aren't visible explicitly... and thus it'd be alright to also make tenting and such imply erection too, right?

Emserdalf said:
...and possibly tenting or erection_under_clothes?

Speaking of which, that last one could be aliased to tenting, eh?

Actually, erection_under_clothes doesn't necessarily mean tenting. After all, it can be laying flat along the body, not creating a "tent" but still visible.

Emserdalf said:

Edit: So really, the description on erection needs to be changed... The fact that it doesn't imply penis means that it's also for erections that aren't visible explicitly... and thus it'd be alright to also make tenting and such imply erection too, right?

Yeah, it just never got updated. I went ahead and made the changes for those.

The implications seem alright though, +1.

@parasprite:
Alright, thanks for clearing that up for me! In this case it certainly makes perfect sense to keep this implication. :)

So but so then should tenting imply erection_under_clothes, though?? Right now it doesn't imply anything.

doofhoofoof said:
So but so then should tenting imply erection_under_clothes, though?? Right now it doesn't imply anything.

lil problem in that would be that tenting does not always imply that the figure is wearing clothing, how would we deal with nude characters that are creating tents thru bed covers(bedding arnt clothes), that would especially be the case with morning wood.

R'D said:
lil problem in that would be that tenting does not always imply that the figure is wearing clothing, how would we deal with nude characters that are creating tents thru bed covers(bedding arnt clothes), that would especially be the case with morning wood.

Oh, duh, good point. It should still imply erection, though, right? It sounded like parasprite was going to do that anyway, per what Emserdalf said.

doofhoofoof said:
Oh, duh, good point. It should still imply erection, though, right? It sounded like parasprite was going to do that anyway, per what Emserdalf said.

yup most definitely

Implication: tenting -> erection (pending)

Objections?

Hudson said:
Implication: tenting -> erection (pending)

Objections?

Nope, as long as people behave like the good taggers they are and don't tag tent with tenting.

Hm... Maybe we need a better word for tenting...