Implicating anthro_penetrating_human → human
Link to implication

Reason:

For an image in a post to depict an anthro character penetrating a human one, both an anthro character and a human character must be present and identifiable in the image; thus, anthro_penetrating_human being applicable to a post implies that both anthro and human are applicable to the same post. If the latter is not the case, then anthro_penetrating_human shouldn't be on the post.

You can suggest multiple implications in the same thread and not separate ones if they're related enough, just put the extra implication suggestions in the description section. I suggest you do that for this and the anthro implication for this tag.

Anyways, +1. Situation inherently has humans and anthros participating, it can't be human/anthro otherwise.

I think this tag is too specific.

I wouldn't mind an anthro_penetrating tag, which would be in line with other tags like female_penetrating. Any [form]_penetrating_[form] should be aliased to [form]_penetrating.

Clawdragons said:
I think this tag is too specific.

I wouldn't mind an anthro_penetrating tag, which would be in line with other tags like female_penetrating. Any [form]_penetrating_[form] should be aliased to [form]_penetrating.

+1. Now that I think about this, this does seem too specific.

Still, since we're here, the _penetration and _penetrated tags should have both penetration and the body type as implications human_penetrating implies human and penetration, for example

Yep, too specific. Alias to anthro_penetrating instead.

There's also the minor matter of mistags, such as post #1115999 (no anthros) and post #261168 / post #1020606 (no humans). Overly specific tags tend to have that problem, and it's always a pain to clean.

Genjar said:
Yep, too specific. Alias to anthro_penetrating instead.

There's also the minor matter of mistags, such as post #1115999 (no anthros) and post #261168 / post #1020606 (no humans). Overly specific tags tend to have that problem, and it's always a pain to clean.

Does that mean all those tags, like anthro_penetrating_feral should be aliased away as well?

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
Does that mean all those tags, like anthro_penetrating_feral should be aliased away as well?

Yes. If you want to see that sort of content, you can search for anthro_penetrating anthro_on_feral.

Genjar said:
Yep, too specific. Alias to anthro_penetrating instead.

It would be nice to implicate it to human_on_anthro as well.

Genjar said:
There's also the minor matter of mistags, such as post #1115999 (no anthros) and post #261168 / post #1020606 (no humans). Overly specific tags tend to have that problem, and it's always a pain to clean.

My bad, they are now fixed.