The bulk update request #84 is active.

Reason: Many missing aliases and implications for tentacles, including common typos and plural variations. Due to the post limit for bulk update requests, the majority of the tags are listed below.

Edit:

• Removed the alias head_tentacle/head_tentacles -> tentacle_hair.
• Removed the alias mechanical_tentacles -> metallic_tentacles.
• Edited the alias for holding_tentacle/holding_tentacles -> tentacle_grab. The alias is now for holding_tentacles -> holding_tentacle. Added implication holding_tentacle -> tentacles.
• Removed the implication tentacle_orgy -> tentacle_sex/orgy. Added Alias tentacle_orgy -> mass_tentacle_sex and added implication mass_tentacle_sex -> tentacle_sex.

Edit 2:

• Removed the implications bound_by_tentacles -> bound and tentacle_bondage -> bondage.
• Removed the implication consentacles -> tentacle_sex.
• Removed the implication tentacle_sex -> sex.

EDIT: The bulk update request #84 (forum #292382) has been approved by @Millcore.

Edit 3:

• Removed the alias tentacle_creature -> tentacle_monster

The only ones I'm unsure about are the tentacle_sex -> sex and related implications. Should it get tagged as sex even though tentacles don't count as characters and the sex tag is for 'sex between two or more characters'...?

Then again, it's definitely not masturbation. But I've always thought of tentacle_sex as a kind of a separate tag in that tag group. As in, sex, tentacle_sex, or masturbation..

Edit: Oh, definitely -1 for the holding_tentacles -> tentacle_grab that TheVileOne mentioned, and consentacles-> tentacle_sex is also problematic since there's several non-sex posts that fit the theme. I didn't notice those on first look, skimmed the list too fast.

Issues

Aliases

• holding and grabbing tentacles probably should remain separate. Holding is specifically for holding one's own body parts.
• Unsure if we should treat mechanical and metal as the same thing. It doesn't seem to be aliased for anything else.
• tentacle_plant would be a separate entity from plant_tentacles. Plant creatures can have vine tentacles and pretty much any kind of prehensile vine would be tagged as this.
• Seems odd to alias head_tentacle to hair_tentacles. Head is the more broad term which includes the face. But I can see there being confusion here.

Implications

• tentacle_bondage is not actual bondage. It shouldn't imply bondage.
• tentacle_sex Tend to agree that it should count as sex, but e621 has had weird criteria about it.
• tentacle_orgy would violate the character requirement.

thevileone said:

• tentacle_orgy would violate the character requirement.

That should probably be renamed. Calling it *_orgy when that tag doesn't apply is asking for mistags..
Something like mass_tentacle_sex instead of tentacle_orgy should work.

Edits

• I hadn't thought about the distinction between holding_* and *_grab tags when submitting this. I'll separate the holding_tentacle and tentacle_grab stuff.
• I'm unsure with mechanical_tentacles since it isn't tagged on anything and the tag mechanical is aliased to machine (which doesn't necessarily imply 'metal'). But since it isn't currently in use, I'll just remove it from the list.
• The head_tentacle/head_tentacles alias I'm kind of uncertain about too. Perhaps it needs a wiki to help make it distinct from tentacle_hair? In the meantime I'll remove those from the list.
• The tentacle_orgy argument makes since. To avoid future mistagging, I'll change the list around for tentacle_orgy to be aliased to mass_tentacle_sex.

Questions

• Unsure about tentacle_sex. I can see the argument for keeping it unimplicated from sex, but it seems like it should count if sex is apparent in the post and the character isn't simply masturbating with their own tentacles. Perhaps it could be an exception to the 'sex between two or more characters...' description due to how characters are counted.
• I'm unsure and wondering about consentacles, since consensual_tentacle_sex is aliased to it. I understand keeping consentacles separate from tentacle_sex, but in that case I think consensual_tentacle_sex should be made it's own tag (with implications to consentacles and tentacle_sex).
• I'm kind of unsure which to keep for tentacle_plant and plant_tentacles, but I feel that they're similar enough that one should just be aliased to the other (and tags like tentacle_monster and living_plant can be used when searching for a 'plant creature with tentacles' instead of simply 'plant tentacles').
• I can see how tentacle_bondage doesn't necessarily equate to bondage, but to avoid future confusion should tentacle_bondage be aliased to bound_by_tentacles?

d.d.m. said:

Edits

• I hadn't thought about the distinction between holding_* and *_grab tags when submitting this. I'll separate the holding_tentacle and tentacle_grab stuff.
• I'm unsure with mechanical_tentacles since it isn't tagged on anything and the tag mechanical is aliased to machine (which doesn't necessarily imply 'metal'). But since it isn't currently in use, I'll just remove it from the list.
• The head_tentacle/head_tentacles alias I'm kind of uncertain about too. Perhaps it needs a wiki to help make it distinct from tentacle_hair? In the meantime I'll remove those from the list.
• The tentacle_orgy argument makes since. To avoid future mistagging, I'll change the list around for tentacle_orgy to be aliased to mass_tentacle_sex.

Questions

• Unsure about tentacle_sex. I can see the argument for keeping it unimplicated from sex, but it seems like it should count if sex is apparent in the post and the character isn't simply masturbating with their own tentacles. Perhaps it could be an exception to the 'sex between two or more characters...' description due to how characters are counted.
• I'm unsure and wondering about consentacles, since consensual_tentacle_sex is aliased to it. I understand keeping consentacles separate from tentacle_sex, but in that case I think consensual_tentacle_sex should be made it's own tag (with implications to consentacles and tentacle_sex).
• I'm kind of unsure which to keep for tentacle_plant and plant_tentacles, but I feel that they're similar enough that one should just be aliased to the other (and tags like tentacle_monster and living_plant can be used when searching for a 'plant creature with tentacles' instead of simply 'plant tentacles').
• I can see how tentacle_bondage doesn't necessarily equate to bondage, but to avoid future confusion should tentacle_bondage be aliased to bound_by_tentacles?

I created bound_by_tentacles as a tag to move all of the images that shouldn't be in the tentacle_bondage tag. Tentacle bondage is a multi-purpose tag that includes bondage scenarios involving tentacles, tentacles being bound, and characters being bound by tentacles. I think tentacle_bondage is supposed to have the definition similar to tail_bondage, wing_bondage, hair_bondage and only be used if a tentacle is bound. I hadn't finished my clean up of that tag.

• I thought consentacles was always meant to be a sexual tag. What other things would you consent to other than sex? Sex may not have happened yet though.

I suggest aliasing tentacle_monster to tentacle_creature. Tentacle monster sounds like it should be restricted to monstrous animals.

BTW living_plant is aliased to flora_fauna. I assume that tentacle_plant is supposed to be for entities that more closely resemble a plant than animal. I don't think it should be a species tag as I was planning on using it for disembodied plant tentacles. Things that would not be considered a character, but can be determined to be part of a plant structure.

Another thing is the lack of a dire_plant tag, which really surprises me.

I'm wanting to get a consensus on what to do for the following aliases/implications so that the bulk update request can be finalized for approval. I'll remove any tags from the list if folks feel they shouldn't be approved.

• alias tentacle_plant -> plant_tentacles
• alias vine_tentacles -> plant_tentacles
• implicate consentacles -> tentacle_sex
• implicate tentacle_bondage -> bondage
• implicate tentacle_sex -> sex

- consentacles is currently tagged for a lot of non-explicit posts that fit the theme: consentacles -rating:e, whereas tentacle_sex is an explicit tag. That's the most problematic out of those, as far as I see it.

- tentacle_sex is in a rather weird niche, in the sense that the sex tag currently requires multiple characters. But tentacles don't usually count as characters, so by the current definition, tentacle sex isn't sex... or rather, it is only sex if the tentacled creature itself is visible, not just the tentacles.

- vine_tentacles and tentacle_plant alias to plant_tentacles seems fine to me. I could see having a tag for tentacle creatures that overall resemble plants, but none of those three are currently tagged that way.

- tentacle_bondage seems more like restraining than actual bondage to me.

And I second the tentacle_monster -> tentacle_creature suggestion. *_creature has become the standard, and not all 'tentacle monsters' are actually monstrous enough to be tagged as monster. Alternately, we could make a separate tentacle_creature tag and implicate tentacle_monster to it. But that'd require sorting, and who has time for that?

@DDM The bondage implication shouldn't happen. Rarely do bondage tags imply bondage, because not all instances they may use for count as bondage. They are tags generally for the bound or restrained tag instead. You'll end up implying bondage in situations that are not bondage as we have defined on the wiki.

Now tentacles are often used for methods extremely similar to bondage, and arguably could replace any bondage implement while keeping the idea of the bondage intact. Currently living things being used as bondage doesn't qualify as bondage.

The current wiki descriptions for tentacle_bondage and bound_by_tentacles are confusing to say the least. If the tentacle_bondage is going to be used for when a tentacle is the one being restrained, then it should clearly mention this fact. It should also not imply bondage because bondage is only used for when characters are the ones bound, and tentacles don't count as characters.

In general I don't like the tentacle_bondage tag name because it's too ambiguous which will lead to a lot of mistagging. I'd propose aliasing it to tentacles_being_bound.

Anyway, the wiki pages also mention:

Using tentacles to restrain characters does not count as bondage. There must be actual bondage restraints present to get the bondage tag.

I'd disagree with this for the same reason - tentacles don't count as a character. Since they don't count as a character, if a character is restrained by tentacles, then it's the same as if they were restrained by ropes. Therefore, a character bound_by_tentacles should imply bondage.

Actually, now that I look at it, we have a tag called cuffed. This tag has been aliased to bound. If a tag, which is essentially bound_by_handcuffs, has been aliased away, then bound_by_tentacles should get the same treatment and be aliased away. The tag simply doesn't have enough value and searching for tentacles restrained should work good enough.

As I said earlier, I created the bound_by_tentacles tag to include as a home for posts in the tentacle_bondage tag. I wasn't yet sure what the fate for that tag should be and I wasn't finished cleaning up the tags.

delian said:
Actually, now that I look at it, we have a tag called cuffed. This tag has been aliased to bound. If a tag, which is essentially bound_by_handcuffs, has been aliased away, then bound_by_tentacles should get the same treatment and be aliased away. The tag simply doesn't have enough value and searching for tentacles restrained should work good enough.

From personable experience, it is not the most enjoyable thing to play guess the tag combination to get what I want to see. bound_by_tentacles is a very necessary tag IMO.

I think it might not be worth handling any of those tags in this BUR, and have them handled separately. There is no sense having these tags get in the way of the bulk of the tags that no one is disagreeing about and having the possibility of having to fix the tags later, because we rushed to include them into a mass update. At least let me organize tentacle_bondage, before aliasing it with bound_by_tentacles which I was using to help sort the images.

• I'm alright with removing the consentacles -> tentacle_sex implication, but should consensual_tentacle_sex be made as it's own tag?
• I'll remove the tentacle_sex -> sex implication, though I think that tentacle_sex could potentially be an exception to the 'two or more characters' rule for tagging sex in posts.
• I had written the wikis for bound_by_tentacles and tentacle_bondage, arbitrarily giving a small distinction between them. However, both tags are virtually indistinguishable to me (even with the description I had written) and seem to be used to describe the same thing (a character being restrained using tentacles). Perhaps aliasing both to restrained_by_tentacles would be more accurate and descriptive with how that tag is worded.
• The distinction between tentacle_monster and tentacle_creature seems like it would be too small to be significant. Aliasing tentacle_monster -> tentacle_creature seems like a good idea, but that can wait for another BUR.

Since each of these are still being discussed, I'll remove these implications from the list above. Though I hope discussion of these (and any other tentacles tags I missed) can continue. I'll submit a subsequent BUR as more aliases/implications are brought up and discussed.

It was intended to be the same usage. I was going to go through all of the tags listed under the original tag, and decide how to proceed with the tag going forward when I was finished. The first step was to disambiguate it by putting everything it was being used for into separate tags.

If at the end of the process it still made sense to keep the definition the same, nothing would have been lost. The primary usage would already be populated by a more descriptive tag. If it deserved to have some other description, I would likely rewrite the wiki and inform others to use my newly populated tag for the old definition instead.

I didn't anticipate someone would come along and try to create a wiki for my tag.

Tag discussion:

- There is a lot of tags missing tentacle_sex, and something like consensual_tentacle_sex would help with that. Although from a searching standpoint, you would get everything you'd want from such a tag by just using consentacles. I don't think it is necessary.

- Why do you have tentacle_creature being aliased to tentacle_monster if you want to suggest the opposite at a later date? If tentacle_creature ends up being the more broad term, then this means that no one will be able to pigeon hole the exceptions into the creature tag.

The bulk update request #84 (forum #292382) has been approved by @Millcore.

thevileone said:

It was intended to be the same usage. I was going to go through all of the tags listed under the original tag, and decide how to proceed with the tag going forward when I was finished. The first step was to disambiguate it by putting everything it was being used for into separate tags.

If at the end of the process it still made sense to keep the definition the same, nothing would have been lost. The primary usage would already be populated by a more descriptive tag. If it deserved to have some other description, I would likely rewrite the wiki and inform others to use my newly populated tag for the old definition instead.

I didn't anticipate someone would come along and try to create a wiki for my tag.

Tag discussion:

- There is a lot of tags missing tentacle_sex, and something like consensual_tentacle_sex would help with that. Although from a searching standpoint, you would get everything you'd want from such a tag by just using consentacles. I don't think it is necessary.

- Why do you have tentacle_creature being aliased to tentacle_monster if you want to suggest the opposite at a later date? If tentacle_creature ends up being the more broad term, then this means that no one will be able to pigeon hole the exceptions into the creature tag.

• Whoops, I hadn't realized tentacle_creature was still on the list. The alias can be reversed, but I apologize for this mistake.

• I was going through the tentacles tags and organizing their wikis when I wrote the bound_by_tentacles and tentacle_bondage wikis. The wikis I had written were meant to be simple and straightforward, so a more refined definition that could help differentiate each of these tags from the other would be welcomed.

• In some examples of consentacles there isn't any tentacle_sex occurring, hence why Genjar suggested the implication for consentacles -> tentacle_sex be removed. If consentacles is suppose to only be for tentacle_sex, then I think the aforementioned consentacles -> tentacle_sex implication should go through. But if consentacles can apply to situations that don't involve tentacle_sex, then I think a consensual_tentacle_sex tag should be implemented (as well as the implication consensual_tentacle_sex -> consentacles and tentacle_sex).

It didn't get aliased, it is fine. Also yes, consentacles isn't only for sex, but it is easily mostly sex images. There would be little reason to search for the much longer sex tag.

To me, the longer name isn't much of an inhibitor. Particularly since there are several other lengthy tag names that are frequently used like butt_from_the_front, presenting_hindquarters, partially_retracted_foreskin, anatomically_correct_genitalia, and others.

I guess I'm aiming for greater accuracy when searching, particularly since consentacles itself doesn't necessarily equate to tentacle_sex. It would also be nice to have a tag that could auto-imply consentacles and tentacle_sex for posts where both tags are applicable (even if a shorter name were given instead of consensual_tentacle_sex, like consentacle_sex, but that example sounds clunky to me).

Edit: It would also be nice to know if any other folks out there would use a consensual_tentacle_sex tag (or a similar equivalent to this). There wouldn't be much point in making it a tag if I'm the only one asking for it and tagging stuff with it.