the Wiki page for suggestive states the tag "suggests the occurrence of explicit acts or body parts [...] Also includes implied out-of-view sex."

while there are posts tagged in this manner, there are many posts not fitting into the definition, often being used as a marker for any sort of sexy content.

i wonder, for one, about the purpose of putting two different definitions (implied sex and naughty objects) under one tag, when they would be best split. for two, this tag appears to have been abused beyond all belief, to the point where the original definition is being ignored.

i do believe it leads to subjective tagging. i'd be in favour of getting rid of it.

three examples below, in order of fitting the definition, borderline fitting the definition, and not fitting the definition.

post #1201694 post #1149493 post #1146462

The wiki is written as it should be, the usage is (or should be) rather clear from it.

Besides that, you seem to misunderstand the role of the objects in it. The tag is to denote that something suggestive is happening to or with an otherwise innocuous object, the tag is not applicable for "naughty" objects. A character performing fellatio on a dildo is not suggestive, but the same character doing so on a banana is.

Otherwise I agree with your examples, the first one is clearly suggestive, the second is borderline suggestive but still fine under the rules, the third one is not suggestive at all.
The tag itself is useful but should be curated.

Well even the wiki entry for the tag says it should not be confused for inviting, presenting, or seductive...the problem is that despite this warning it still has been. I just think the tag needs some cleaning up...it doesn't need to be deleted.

If it were to be deleted, however, I would split it into suggestive_food and implied_sex...as those seem to be the two main uses.

i'm currently too occupied to curate this tag but will look at it when i'm not

Not a major problem, since majority of the mistags seem to be by the same user.
Too bad that things like this rarely get noticed before they've been mistagged by hundreds.

Genjar said:
Too bad that things like this rarely get noticed before they've been mistagged by hundreds.

It usually isn't noticeable until it's been mistagged a few hundred times.