The bulk update request #253 is active.

remove implication foreskin_pull (983) -> uncut (0)
remove implication foreskin_play (2393) -> uncut (0)
remove implication phimosis (0) -> uncut (0)
remove implication foreskin_piercing (90) -> uncut (0)
create implication foreskin_pull (983) -> foreskin (148344)
create implication uncut (0) -> foreskin (148344)
create implication partially_retracted_foreskin (33234) -> foreskin (148344)
create implication long_foreskin (4885) -> foreskin (148344)
create implication foreskin_sheath (43) -> foreskin (148344)
create implication foreskin_pull (983) -> foreskin (148344)

Reason: Needed cleanup for a long time, would be willing to take suggestions on dealing with uncut_with_sheath bc it really is a bit ambiguopus between the difference. Does this count as that? https://e621.net/posts/966757?q=lanaya_broussard or is this its own tag?

Anyway Im not sure if Im accidentally treading over existing ground.

Also lastly once and for all. Should we alias Uncut to intact or leave it as *uncut*. They mean the same thing so theres no net positive or negative.

EDIT: The bulk update request #253 (forum #295957) has failed: Error: retracted_foreskin already implies foreskin through another implication (create implication retracted_foreskin -> foreskin)

EDIT: The bulk update request #253 (forum #295957) has been approved by @Millcore.

EDIT: The bulk update request #253 (forum #295957) has failed: Implication for foreskin_pull not found

If uncut ends up being aliased to anything, I think the best option would be aliasing uncut to uncircumcised (as the reverse to the circumcised tag). Though uncircumcised would first need to be de-aliased from uncut.

There's also the possibility of utilizing circumcised_penis and uncircumcised_penis instead of circumcised and uncircumcised, to help further reduce the ambiguity of how these tags should be utilized.

Just gonna TL;DR and say again that as non native english speaker, if I search for uncut dicks, I search foreskin. So as long as you can find uncut dicks by searching foreskin, then I'm fine with this literally years old debade.

Both uncut and uncircumcised still sound extremely stupid to me because it's reflecting to default and natural state of humanoid penis by saying that there's nothing done to it (it's like tagging all images where character isn't amputated as unamputated), where foreskin points to objective physical part of the penis that is visible. Thing uncircumcised alias would do is make it sound more professional and clearer it means slashing of penis specifically.

I also forgot to add Deimplicating Foreskin pull from Uncut orz and deimplicating everything from uncut. I also still think Uncut is a useless tag as @mairo brought up but some people seem determined to fight it tooth and claw to keep it. So Im going to just let that sit.

I still stand by saying Parasprite was right when they flipped that alias and the fact they were bullied out for doing so is beyond frustrating.

I digress. Im not looking for drama, just want this fixed after 3-4 years.

d.d.m. said:

There's also the possibility of utilizing circumcised_penis and uncircumcised_penis instead of circumcised and uncircumcised, to help further reduce the ambiguity of how these tags should be utilized.

The problem with that is that FGM(nullification and clitoral amputation) and Female Circumcision (Labiaplasty) are a thing called "Circumcision" and thats a whole can of worms. Since theyre depicted on site that means we cannot use those as tags.

I'll toss out the old forums that touched this topic:
topic #26553
topic #16575

Otherwise, there's not much I see wrong except foreskin_sheath. Last time I heard, a sheath cannot have foreskin on it, but that might be wrong at this point.

Check the linked post. A very high quantity of mine and my fiance's characters have the feature

My apologies, I didn't realize this was a problematic subject. I was wanting to make the tag names for uncut and circumcised match up better with each other and with the rest of the *_penis tags, and I figured uncircumcised_penis and circumcised_penis would work. But if that isn't looked fondly upon, some other tag could be used instead (such as intact_penis or uncut_penis).

The bulk update request #253 (forum #295957) has failed: Error: retracted_foreskin already implies foreskin through another implication (create implication retracted_foreskin -> foreskin)

The bulk update request #275 is active.

remove implication retracted_foreskin (24092) -> uncut (0)
remove implication partially_retracted_foreskin (33234) -> uncut (0)
remove implication long_foreskin (4885) -> uncut (0)

Reason: missing implication removals

EDIT: The bulk update request #275 (forum #296550) has been approved by @Millcore.

blind_guardian said:
The bulk update request #275 is active.

remove implication retracted_foreskin (24092) -> uncut (0)
remove implication partially_retracted_foreskin (33234) -> uncut (0)
remove implication long_foreskin (4885) -> uncut (0)

Reason: missing implication removals

I knew I missed some, thanks.

Considering the new BUR and update to the oroginal can this get processed again? Or do we have to make another new BUR

Imagine a [FAILED] Foreskin Restoration.

lance_armstrong said:
Imagine a [FAILED] Foreskin Restoration.

Ohh... I don't think I want to know...
post #2261604

All jokes aside Im just worried that this is in limbo permanently

I'm sorry for your loss.

Not gonna lie that title kinda lead me to believe that this was something else

demesejha said:
All jokes aside Im just worried that this is in limbo permanently

It's alright, I'll be sending over a dmail soon with a list of BURs for review, which will include the BURs here. I may send it over later today or it may take me a few days (depending on when I'll have the time to dedicate to completing the list), but it will be sent for review soon. No need to worry. :)

d.d.m. said:
It's alright, I'll be sending over a dmail soon with a list of BURs for review, which will include the BURs here. I may send it over later today or it may take me a few days (depending on when I'll have the time to dedicate to completing the list), but it will be sent for review soon. No need to worry. :)

Awesome, thanks :)

I giggle everytime i read this title xdddd

The bulk update request #253 (forum #295957) has been approved by @Millcore.

The bulk update request #275 (forum #296550) has been approved by @Millcore.