Currently, predator/prey relations implies interspecies. Relations, however, doesn't say anything about requiring the relations to be sexual, while interspecies is explicitly about sexual interaction.

Should PPR be explicitly about sexual relations, should interspecies be un-implicated, or should interspecies be modified?

I say keep it to sexual scenarios.

Yeah, those have been messy from the start. I've been trying my best to ignore it, because there's just too much to untangle. Ah well.

Interspecies is such a common kink that we definitely need a tag for it. So that one shouldn't be changed, keep it for sexual scenarios.

Whereas predator/prey_relations is tagged far less. So my suggestion would be to unimplicate that, then alias it to predator/prey and make the definition broader: any posts that feature interaction between a predator and prey species. That'd make more specific searches possible: predator/prey couple, predator/prey interspecies, etc.

Genjar said:
Yeah, those have been messy from the start. I've been trying my best to ignore it, because there's just too much to untangle. Ah well.

Interspecies is such a common kink that we definitely need a tag for it. So that one shouldn't be changed, keep it for sexual scenarios.

Whereas predator/prey_relations is tagged far less. So my suggestion would be to unimplicate that, then alias it to predator/prey and make the definition broader: any posts that feature interaction between a predator and prey species. That'd make more specific searches possible: predator/prey couple, predator/prey interspecies, etc.

Yeah, I'm kind of leaning towards that last paragraph, personally, though obviously as some random schmuck on the internet it's not my call.

As for PPR, I tag it, but most of my edits do tend to be of sexually based posts anyway, so until just before I started this thread I didn't think of the whole issue regarding PPR not mentioning sexual situations.

Genjar said:
Whereas predator/prey_relations is tagged far less. So my suggestion would be to unimplicate that, then alias it to predator/prey and make the definition broader: any posts that feature interaction between a predator and prey species. That'd make more specific searches possible: predator/prey couple, predator/prey interspecies, etc.

I'm for anything that gets rid of the "relations" part of the tag. I think this might work well.

So is Genjar's suggestion going to be implemented?

(With the car/limousine thing, I realized there were other threads that went without completion, hence the bumping old stuff.)

imagoober said:
So is Genjar's suggestion going to be implemented?

(With the car/limousine thing, I realized there were other threads that went without completion, hence the bumping old stuff.)

Sure.

I've made the following changes:

• Implication: predator/prey_relations -> interspecies (deleted)
• Alias: many variations -> predator/prey (approved)

Cool. Now it can be cleaned a bit.
Sorted some safe-rated posts from interspecies to romantic_couple.

I know that I said that interspecies shouldn't be tagged for safe posts, but posts such as...
post #226318
...kinda make me wonder. It's outright stated that it's post-interspecies. On the other hand, there's that weird 'ignore text when tagging' rule. And on the third (?!) hand, maybe the implication would push that into questionable... Bah. Those kind of posts have always been bit fuzzy to me.

Genjar said:
Cool. Now it can be cleaned a bit.
Sorted some safe-rated posts from interspecies to romantic_couple.

I know that I said that interspecies shouldn't be tagged for safe posts, but posts such as...
post #226318
...kinda make me wonder. It's outright stated that it's post-interspecies. On the other hand, there's that weird 'ignore text when tagging' rule. And on the third (?!) hand, maybe the implication would push that into questionable... Bah. Those kind of posts have always been bit fuzzy to me.

We don't have implied_interspecies?

Genjar said:
Cool. Now it can be cleaned a bit.
Sorted some safe-rated posts from interspecies to romantic_couple.

I know that I said that interspecies shouldn't be tagged for safe posts, but posts such as...
post #226318
...kinda make me wonder. It's outright stated that it's post-interspecies. On the other hand, there's that weird 'ignore text when tagging' rule. And on the third (?!) hand, maybe the implication would push that into questionable... Bah. Those kind of posts have always been bit fuzzy to me.

To be fair, it's also tagged bestiality

Furrin_Gok said:
We don't have implied_interspecies?

Not according to the page that link creates.

Anyway, I cleaned up a bit more of interspecies on images where there isn't any sexuality involved, though a few I left alone because I wasn't certain.

Furrin_Gok said:
We don't have implied_interspecies?

This would've been my choice instead of broadening the PPR tag to include non-sexual content, since the purpose for both is rather different aside from theme (explicit vs non-explicit/humor etc.)

the implied_* set already exists, but from what I understand, there have been major headaches to keep them both populated and sorted correctly[citation needed],
like implied_incest, implied_rape, implied_vore, implied_tree etc.

Not really sure what to do about that, but a combinative search isn't really breaking anything so that's fine
(say, {{predator/prey rating:e}}