I know that not everyone's here for the porn, but for better or worse sex positions are a valid way to categorise a large portion of e621's archived material.
Yet the tags are inconsistent¹, have large gaps in functionality², and have many user-trend pitfalls³.
<sup>1. doggystyle and mounting lack the _position suffix found on every other position tag
2. very few standing position tags
3. mating_press is not a position tag but is often used as such, along with many posts being tagged with only the most-well-known position tags (eg. missionary_position doggystyle cowgirl_position) when a smaller tag is more applicable.</sup>

I used to think the lack of apparent attention made it a good area to focus on, until I found some specific users with a focus for removing valid position tags. I figured that's what the report system is for, but aside from the stock Handled, thank you for your report. message no apparent action is taken and the users continue tagging as they were, and I'm left to wonder if it's because my complaints are about users with better stats than I have, or if it's just not an area that's worth paying attention to. I know I'm not always right myself, but it's barely worth giving it any effort if anything I do has someone else more dedicated to reverting it while the administration isn't correcting anyone.

I sometimes search for position tags, generally they seem extremely useful. I'm sorry that someone/some group is going around missing with your work. That sucks. Do you think it's people who don't recognize more detailed/specific tags and want to revert back to a more general tag which they recognize? These days there are lots of position tags which I don't recognize and I could see someone being bothered by that.

I've given up on working on the sex positions, at least until (if) the thumbnail limit gets fixed. Can't fit any more thumbs into tag_group:sex_positions since the limit got dropped to 25 after the site upgrade.

But if you want to add new positions, feel free to do so. Especially for those standing positions. Though it'd be best to discuss the name first, so we don't end up with duplicates, or another fiasco like the table_lotus_position (the actual table lotus position is much more specific than how we tag it).

Here's one suggestion:
standing_oral_position
post #2292021 post #2344205 post #2370226
Common position. Has various other names, but it's usually best use the name that makes the usage obvious. Unlike something like zeus_position.

tittybitty said:
Do you think it's people who don't recognize more detailed/specific tags and want to revert back to a more general tag which they recognize? These days there are lots of position tags which I don't recognize and I could see someone being bothered by that.

I would assume that it is either a rejection of the more complex tags, or a rejection of implications they bring. I noticed in the post I linked, the legs_up tag was removed at the same time which might indicate the tagger does not consider legs_up to be valid for that post's posing. I do have a theory that this may be inflamed by the missionary_position stating: Both characters should be lying down, or at least in generally horizontal position. If the top is kneeling or standing, anvil position or table lotus position is usually more appropriate. This creates a situation where missionary_position is stated to be inappropriate where the penetrating partner is relatively upright, yet table_lotus_position is typically used when the penetrated partner is on a raised platform, and anvil_position implies legs_up, which isn't going to be appropriate for every post that slips out of the stated definition of missionary_position. The part about kneeling also seems iffy, as it sends posts such as this in the direction of anvil_position when it's probably still a better fit for missionary and I think I've made a few such taggings myself in the past. It should probably specify something like upright kneeling since that seems to be where one problem is.

I don't know if it would be a better solution to re-word anvil_position to be more closely based on where the penetratee's legs are in relation to the penetrator's arms, but I think there's always going to be some grey areas, and honestly I'm glad there's enough variation in artwork posing to make complete definition difficult.
In a previous thread I brought up the question of whether the "default" tags should be umbrella tags that can coexist with others, but it's difficult to get discussion going around the porn-based tags. At this point I'm pretty sure the people most interested in the tagging system are the least interested in having anything to do with porn, which honestly isn't too surprising.

I'm not a tagger, but as a long time browser, position tags are a god send.

genjar said:
But if you want to add new positions, feel free to do so. Especially for those standing positions. Though it'd be best to discuss the name first, so we don't end up with duplicates, or another fiasco like the table_lotus_position (the actual table lotus position is much more specific than how we tag it).

Yeah, table_lotus_position is something I think is worth talking about. Honestly I've always assumed the important part was the leg-wrap that's in a number of posts but on a quick google what I find is more like an on-platform version of what the site would consider anvil_position. At one point I thought I floated the idea of replacing table_lotus_position with platform_* prefixed versions of the existing same-level sex positions, but could it be possible/easier to slide in a new platform_sex tag and use that alongside existing tags? Although switching to standing-based positions could draw even more contention over what counts as which position.
eg.
post #2435856 post #2382226 platform_sex missionary_position
post #2439979 post #2383160 platform_sex anvil_position
post #2432882 post #2321833 platform_sex upright_missionary_position^{*see below}

I've been trying to figure up a tag for something like this where the penetrator is too upright to count for missionary_position but they aren't really on any kind of raised surface for table_lotus_position to make sense, and aren't reclined enough for deck_chair_position. I'd throw in something like reclined_lotus_position but I'm not sure I like using lotus_position as a base for so many things. Would a lot of these problems be fixed if we just had an upright_missionary_position or vertical_missionary_position tag?
Though honestly this runs back to my OP in that even if consensus is that this tag is desired, tagging would likely still have to be pushing back against users flipping everything back to missionary_position
post #2428819

I'm still not sure what to call these squatting missionary positions when they don't line up with the anvil_position definitions
post #2431133 post #2431267

I have noticed that since a few of my previous posts/threads tag_group:sex_positions doesn't list doggystyle and mounting as position-type tags anymore, and some specific position tags within from_behind_position have been popping up, so I'm interested to see that develop.

magnuseffect said:
Yeah, table_lotus_position is something I think is worth talking about. Honestly I've always assumed the important part was the leg-wrap that's in a number of posts but on a quick google what I find is more like an on-platform version of what the site would consider anvil_position. At one point I thought I floated the idea of replacing table_lotus_position with platform_* prefixed versions of the existing same-level sex positions, but could it be possible/easier to slide in a new platform_sex tag and use that alongside existing tags? Although switching to standing-based positions could draw even more contention over what counts as which position.
eg.
post #2435856 post #2382226 platform_sex missionary_position
post #2439979 post #2383160 platform_sex anvil_position
post #2432882 post #2321833 platform_sex upright_missionary_position^{*see below}

I've been trying to figure up a tag for something like this where the penetrator is too upright to count for missionary_position but they aren't really on any kind of raised surface for table_lotus_position to make sense, and aren't reclined enough for deck_chair_position. I'd throw in something like reclined_lotus_position but I'm not sure I like using lotus_position as a base for so many things. Would a lot of these problems be fixed if we just had an upright_missionary_position or vertical_missionary_position tag?
Though honestly this runs back to my OP in that even if consensus is that this tag is desired, tagging would likely still have to be pushing back against users flipping everything back to missionary_position
post #2428819

I'm still not sure what to call these squatting missionary positions when they don't line up with the anvil_position definitions
post #2431133 post #2431267

I have noticed that since a few of my previous posts/threads tag_group:sex_positions doesn't list doggystyle and mounting as position-type tags anymore, and some specific position tags within from_behind_position have been popping up, so I'm interested to see that develop.

The more tags we have, the better. It's so hard to find specific types of images without browsing excessively.

Tagging positions makes a lot of sense. There are positions I'd probably like to find more of, but there's no tag linking them together.

dunnno said:
There are positions I'd probably like to find more of, but there's no tag linking them together.

Got any examples?

magnuseffect said:
I'm still not sure what to call these squatting missionary positions when they don't line up with the anvil_position definitions
post #2431133 post #2431267

First one is mating press (which should be a position tag), second one is too unusual to fit well under any common position. Users tagging any face-to-face position as missionary has always been a problem; it was intended for strictly vanilla, which those clearly aren't.

genjar said:
Users tagging any face-to-face position as missionary has always been a problem; it was intended for strictly vanilla, which those clearly aren't.

That's the biggest reason I'd like to see missionary_position and cowgirl_position turned into umbrella tags. Without supporting tags they're just a big jumble of tangentially-related positions. If they turn into umbrellas, people can keep slapping them on everything and that can still be used to sort them into specifics, while the people who want the whole broad grouping can get even more of that than they currently do.

First one is mating press (which should be a position tag), second one is too unusual to fit well under any common position.

According to the wiki history the definition of mating press as strictly the viewpoint was lifted straight from Danbooru, and originally specified as applying to anvil_position, with the missionary_position added almost a year later. I personally wouldn't be opposed to turning it into a position tag if it catches the runoff from anvil_position, but my next gripe is that if that happens it should apply to the second example as well. It's effectively the same position, just with the penetrator's feet planted a little further back, and one of the penetratee's legs beneath instead of above the penetrator's knee.

If I were to take a stab at definition I'd say the common tie was something along the lines of an on-back sex position with the penetrating partner either straddling or squatting over the penetrating partner's hindquarters. Would that seem right?
It would catch most of what I'm currently seeing on the front page of mating_press, though there would be a lot of edge-cases and it wouldn't match posts like the following where the penetrator's legs are just spread a little while extended out behind them.
post #2430628

magnuseffect said:
I've been trying to figure up a tag for something like this where the penetrator is too upright to count for missionary_position but they aren't really on any kind of raised surface for table_lotus_position to make sense, and aren't reclined enough for deck_chair_position. I'd throw in something like reclined_lotus_position but I'm not sure I like using lotus_position as a base for so many things. Would a lot of these problems be fixed if we just had an upright_missionary_position or vertical_missionary_position tag?
Though honestly this runs back to my OP in that even if consensus is that this tag is desired, tagging would likely still have to be pushing back against users flipping everything back to missionary_position
post #2428819

Mating press as a term I always assumed meant any position where the character is being pinned during sex, whether that meant being held down or being pinned with a penis. In that sense it isn't a typical position tag as it can apply to various other position tags at the same time.

I hear your cries for help, I feel you. I haven't really taken the time to get familiar with a lot of the position tags. I do try to make sure the tags I used are accurate to the best of my knowledge.

The problem with my motivation to learn more positions is mainly that the wikis aren't well setup for ease of access lookups. Other sex position sites allow you to search by common criteria, while the sex positions wiki is just a list of mostly unsorted tags.

If you really wanted to make it useful for someone like me, you would need to overhaul the structure of that wiki, and include more ways for me to quickly find positions based on anatomy positions in the image.

If I have a scene where legs_up applies. I want a quick way to find all positions associated with that posture.

Proposal

I think it would be immensely helpful for me at least if you organize the sex positions wiki using this section format instead. Include other categories as needed such as suspended, or involves furniture. If there isn't a name for a variant, just come up with something that sort of makes sense and I will use it. reclined_missionary, standing_missionary It doesn't matter to me. I just need a tag to use that I can easily find.

A potential umbrella solution for missionary_position could be from_front_position. The precedent is already there with from_behind_position and it would semantically cover everything at issue, but it would likely require manual re-application of a separate vanilla/standard _missionary_position tag as it would likely require an alias in order to stick. (I get the impression that as is most of from_behind_position comes from high volume doggystyle taggings)

My best suggestion is to just start tagging something if you care about it being populated. Write a wiki describing how to use it. Obviously there is a very broad variety of positions out there, much more than there are actual real names for. If we are ever going to tackle this issue, we just need to start tagging them however they make sense.

Your posts are dense walls to me, and I would rather not dig into them right now. You do seem to have some good ideas and good ideas like that don't need to be discussed to death. Start tagging platform_sex if you think it should become a valid tag. I'll help you even.

Also do check my comments in my last post if you haven't. We will need proper organization for all of these new tags.

thevileone said:
Your posts are dense walls to me, and I would rather not dig into them right now. You do seem to have some good ideas and good ideas like that don't need to be discussed to death. Start tagging platform_sex if you think it should become a valid tag. I'll help you even.

The whole 'if you build it, they will come' mentality. Can't say it's wrong on this site tbh.

(I haven't had a good chance to jump into this conversation, I've mostly worked with the tags that exist currently while at least trying to tag some of the less-common ones. It wouldn't be bad to expand our selection.)

thevileone said:
If you really wanted to make it useful for someone like me, you would need to overhaul the structure of that wiki, and include more ways for me to quickly find positions based on anatomy positions in the image.

Proposal

I think it would be immensely helpful for me at least if you organize the sex positions wiki using this section format instead. Include other categories as needed such as suspended, or involves furniture. If there isn't a name for a variant, just come up with something that sort of makes sense and I will use it. reclined_missionary, standing_missionary It doesn't matter to me. I just need a tag to use that I can easily find.

I could try to bash out a big overhaul proposal writeup, likely with proposal for new and re-defined position tags, though I probably won't be particularly quick about it.
Last time I was on this track I burnt out from worrying about details and whether there was actual support.

Your posts are dense walls to me, and I would rather not dig into them right now. You do seem to have some good ideas and good ideas like that don't need to be discussed to death. Start tagging platform_sex if you think it should become a valid tag. I'll help you even.

Yeah, I'm a bit like that, sorry. I also tunnel-vision way too hard and lose track of adjacent facts.

I've got a few ideas on how to move forward, I'll try to work on something and let people who seem interested know when I think it's worth proofing.
Thanks everyone for the thread interest so far.

Please understand that changes that involve changing actual tag usages will take a lot more time to implement. I really advise you to work on changes that don't need the usage of other tags drastically changed. You don't need to change any tag to start adding platform_sex for example. You don't need to have missionary as an umbrella tag to start populating variant of missionary tags. They can easily be implied to missionary later.

Restructuring that positions wiki probably could be approached with minimal tag restructuring. You are welcome to suggest tag bases in group wikis, or if you don't want a tag base to be used you can leave it unlinked. The from_behind_position wiki has been very useful to me, because it actually lists the tags it applies to. It would be nice to see a few more situations where I can easily know the relations of different tags.

There is a chance someone will try to nuke your efforts, and the best defense against that is to make a proper wiki and go on a tagging binge and get the counts up to at least 25-50. That helps deter vandals.

Edit:

If you wanted a way to get around the 25 image limit, consider breaking up the sex positions wiki into multiple wikis based on category, and linking to those pages from the main wiki.

thevileone said:
You don't need to have missionary as an umbrella tag to start populating variant of missionary tags. They can easily be implied to missionary later.

I mean, you do when someone's got a tagging project for flipping variants back to missionary. That's a big part of why I want to get some theoretical momentum going before actually making changes.
(aaaaahhhhhh I'm replying to an edited post now)

thevileone said:
Please understand that changes that involve changing actual tag usages will take a lot more time to implement. I really advise you to work on changes that don't need the usage of other tags drastically changed. You don't need to change any tag to start adding platform_sex for example.

Restructuring that positions wiki probably could be approached with minimal tag restructuring. You are welcome to suggest tag bases in group wikis, or if you don't want a tag base to be used you can leave it unlinked. The from_behind_position wiki has been very useful to me, because it actually lists the tags it applies to. It would be nice to see a few more situations where I can easily know the relations of different tags.

I just want to confirm that I'm aiming for as little usage-reconstruction as can be gotten away with.

There are a lot of things I want to consider and it would likely be best for me to produce a mechanical framework draft at this point, or anything more I say is going to come across as too disconnected.

Let me get this straight, they have a tagging project for replacing an accurate tag to an inaccurate tag (one of the definitions of tag vandalism). The wiki for missionary is quite clear that it should only be used if certain criteria is met. If someone isn't lying down, it isn't missionary period.

thevileone said:
Let me get this straight, they have a tagging project for replacing an accurate tag to an inaccurate tag (one of the definitions of tag vandalism). The wiki for missionary is quite clear that it should only be used if certain criteria is met. If someone isn't lying down, it isn't missionary period.

Yes.
edit: links removed

magnuseffect said:
Yes.
ticket #57716
ticket #66945

Access Denied
You do not have permission to visit this page.

strikerman said:
Access Denied
You do not have permission to visit this page.

Oof, do tickets go private after a certain time?
I can reach other tickets using dtext links though, and neither of these are confidential-flagged on my end.

magnuseffect said:
Oof, do tickets go private after a certain time?

User complaint tickets are hidden from other users.

watsit said:
User complaint tickets are hidden from other users.

That would explain it.

Okay I've got a quick selection of posts I had found at the time, about four of which have since been either reverted back to missionary_position or had it added alongside another tag.
I'm still assuming that the point of contention for the anvil_position tag is what counts as legs_up, but none of these posts fit the wiki-statement for missionary_position.
post #1968896 history
post #1887684 history
post #1967423 history
post #1962362 history
post #1960928 history
post #1958105 history
post #2171859 history
post #2183065 history
post #2182471 history
post #2182589 history
post #2176844 history

If it's a single user responsible for the change, have you contacted them?

I don't have much confidence in personally telling other users what to do in apparently-subjective tagging disputes.
I had assumed at the time that it was better to bring it to admin attention, and for all I know they were contacted about it. I wasn't told either ticket was inappropriate.

magnuseffect said:
A potential umbrella solution for missionary_position could be from_front_position.

Might work, or maybe just a generic face-to-face_position instead? In any case, we definitely need a tag for normal missionary so that those are searchable. Face-to-face, both partners lying down, the most vanilla position possible. I suppose 'vanilla_missionary_position' could work.

As for anvil_position: that was an another placeholder name that unfortunately caught on too quick while we were populating the tag. One of those 'we can rename it later, let's just tag it' things.

The original usage for 'anvil' was intended for positions where the penetrated partner is lying on their back with legs drawn back, with the penetrating partner kneeling. It was meant to cover various related kneeling positions (such as anvil, viennese oyster, g-whiz, deep impact, folded deck chair, launchpad, etc). Because missionary_position was getting overtagged (and still is), and we wanted to separate kneeling positions from it.

So the focus was on kneeling. The position of the penetrated partners legs didn't matter much (could be to sides, legs up, pulled back, etc) when we started tagging it. But then someone went ahead and wrote the wiki, adding the 'legs up' requirement, resulting in one of the ex-admin implicating it to legs_up without discussion. And that's how that mess was born.

So I'm just going to say real quick: I'm rather interested in seeing this topic actually go somewhere, because I know shit-all about sex positions, and would like to be able to tag my own art (and potentially others') as accurately as possible. Unfortunately, I likely won't be able to contribute much due to my lack of knowledge on the subject.

magnuseffect said:
A potential umbrella solution for missionary_position could be from_front_position.

genjar said:
Might work, or maybe just a generic face-to-face_position instead?

+1 to at least making an umbrella tag to catch weird edge cases and to group together similar positions. Although I'd feel like the tag name would depend on where the lines are drawn for its usage. As someone unfamiliar to most of this, I'll just give you what the two options (so far) come off as to me:

• face-to-face_position sounds like it'd mean literally face-to-face, not just anything where both people are facing each other (so not including something like 69_position), and not including ones where one person is in any way sideways. Although I feel like I could, in time, remember it as a less strict definition if that was how it was used.
• from_front_position, on the surface, seems like it'd be fine to use for literally anything from the front. But looking at the wiki for from_behind_position, it seems like it'd carry the connotation of specifically needing penetration to count(?).
• Neither tag names feel like they have anything to do with specifically standing, laying down, etc. though so if that's what you're going for, then that seems fine to me at least.

I can't say I can overly comment on too much else in this thread though, so you guys can have my two cents on that tag name and I'll get out of your way.

I had to take a break from porn stuff, but I'm probably going to dip back into this thread now and then to bring up issues that cross my mind, rather than sending things straight to requests.

pronebone and prone_bone disambiguation?

pronebone and prone_bone (just given a wiki recently) are a couple of tags I meant to look into a while ago.
In my personal opinion they're both clutter-tags. But they don't separate cleanly into either speed_bump_position or jockey_position, so assuming they're not just manually tidied for the forseeable future, I'm not sure what the appropriate alias should be.
on_front would probably give the least false-positives but separate it out of sex implications.

Both of the wikis for those positions specify that character needs to be lying prone on front and prone bone as a position is for any rear-entry position featuring that specific definition.

thevileone said:
Both of the wikis for those positions specify that character needs to be lying prone on front and prone bone as a position is for any rear-entry position featuring that specific definition.

It should at the very least be aliased into a single tag.
I'll concede that it could be useful as a vehicle for on_front from_behind_position implications.

While you're here, should side_entry_missionary be moved to side_entry_missionary_position (or something shorter like side_missionary_position) for consistency before it's populated?
It seems distinct enough, since it can't have missionary_position (or reverse_missionary_position) tagged alongside without a false-positive on_back implication.

magnuseffect said:
While you're here, should side_entry_missionary be moved to side_entry_missionary_position (or something shorter like side_missionary_position) for consistency before it's populated?
It seems distinct enough, since it can't have missionary_position (or reverse_missionary_position) tagged alongside without false-positive on_back implication.

For consistency's sake, it should end with "position", and side missionary position sounds good to me.

(Is there like an 'official' encyclopedia out there somewhere for sex position names?)

magnuseffect said:
It should at the very least be aliased into a single tag.
I'll concede that it could be useful as a vehicle for on_front from_behind_position implications.

I hadn't gotten that far. It is the term for that kind of thing even if it sounds kind of cheesy. The definition should be accurate to the actual definition of the term. It doesn't represent any one position as far as I can tell.

magnuseffect said:
While you're here, should side_entry_missionary be moved to side_entry_missionary_position (or something shorter like side_missionary_position) for consistency before it's populated?
It seems distinct enough, since it can't have missionary_position (or reverse_missionary_position) tagged alongside without a false-positive on_back implication.

I'm shortening tag names that are quite long to type, at least until they have the shorter aliases. If I'm going to be populating these tags, I'm going to be omitting some fluff attached to the tags.

I named it side_entry_missionary because that was the name I found when looking for a name for the position. It could be shortened to something like you mentioned I guess.

strikerman said:
For consistency's sake, it should end with "position", and side missionary position sounds good to me.

(Is there like an 'official' encyclopedia out there somewhere for sex position names?)

There are a few sites that list names for various positions. I have one that I rely on more than others sexinfo101 .com, but other sites may have different names for different positions or describe the positions differently. Unfortunately only the most common ones will have well recognized and uniform names. When it comes to the weird positions, each site may have a different name for it.

strikerman said:
(Is there like an 'official' encyclopedia out there somewhere for sex position names?)

From what I've seen the porn industry is too widely-dispersed for most lists to be completely compatible with the way people are going to tag. There's a bunch that are fine for a bit of inspiration but I think we're better off building our own set of definitions in the long run.

There's been some unresolved discussion about the entanglement of bisexual_sandwich auto-implying sandwich_position (when it's frequently tagged for bisexual train_position) that was muddied by all the external resources for "sandwich position" apparently contradicting each other.

thevileone said:
I named it side_entry_missionary because that was the name I found when looking for a name for the position.

I think you missed sideways_missionary_position (exclusively tagged for leg_glider_position posts when I found it) and sideway_missionary_position which has 8 appropriate posts.
I'm interested in tidying them into side_missionary_position unless consensus is one of the others is more appropriate.
The "sideways" part seems to be getting at least someone caught with a different context, I'm hoping just "side" will pull it closer to on_side association, but who knows? When it happens the new wiki (I imagine the current side_entry_missionary page with name tweaks) should probably get a line breaking its potential association with leg glider.

I didn't bother to check for those. I should have figured there was a tag for it. Now that you collected all of the similar terms, we can create a BUR for it now.

Also sure, it wouldn't hurt to have a line for that. Although leg glider isn't that similar to missionary, yet people seem to think it is. Most of the time the penetrating character isn't even close to lying down, and depending on which side the leg is, it could be front or rear entry.

Edit:

There seems to be another variant of missionary that is called sideways_missionary or side-entry missionary that is different than the definition of both on the side. There is another variant where just the girl is on her side and the guy leans over her bent leg. I don't have time to investigate this right now.

thevileone said:
Also sure, it wouldn't hurt to have a line for that. Although leg glider isn't that similar to missionary, yet people seem to think it is. Most of the time the penetrating character isn't even close to lying down, and depending on which side the leg is, it could be front or rear entry.

I think the problem there is that having a term like sideways can create confusion that the penetration angle itself is sideways. That possibility is also why I'm not confident about side-entry, honestly.

edit: Oof, I didn't go as far as checking external databases for what things mean there, but that sounds like a potential source of this confusion.

This is also called sideways missionary. Imagine there not being as big of a size difference and you would get the real life version.

post #2382971

thevileone said:
This is also called sideways missionary. Imagine there not being as big of a size difference and you would get the real life version.

post #2382971

Yeah, I've been meaning to talk about the potential gaps surrounding fringe-usage of leg_glider_position^* along with t_square_position not intuitively covering a number of potential on_side_penetrated positions, but I haven't gotten around to it.

*Mostly when it's more of an on_side-anvil_position where the bottom leg isn't being straddled, and the upper leg isn't always vertical. I know Genjar's mentioned leg glider before too.

If leg glider starts looking like missionary, you have to start questioning whether it is just sideways missionary. The character's leg should prevent a character from getting into a very horizontal position.

Not quite missionary here, but it is getting close.
post #2446825

thevileone said:
If leg glider starts looking like missionary, you have to start questioning whether it is just sideways missionary. The character's leg should prevent a character from getting into a very horizontal position.

Not quite missionary here, but it is getting close.
post #2446825

post #1887684
But then the next problem is back to being that it doesn't match site-definition for missionary when the penetrating partner is more upright. It might be a better fit if missionary_position does turn into an umbrella tag, though then there's the matter of confusing the sideways variant with the on side one again.

I'll try to dig a bit for the post where Genjar talked about the leg glider tag being another runaway-usage example.

Full post here
Yep. Leg glider is overused compared to the real life position. It's called leg glider because the penetrating partner is straddling a leg while holding an another, as in post #1665955. Whereas sideways positions like these are entirely different, and should probably be moved elsewhere:
post #1812635 post #1755894

I didn't remember those two being the examples in the post though. Those two are, in my opinion, closer in the direction of spoon_position, for lack of a better classification.*

*clarification: I'm already aware these were examples of what's not leg_glider_position

magnuseffect said:
Yeah, I've been meaning to talk about the potential gaps surrounding fringe-usage of leg_glider_position^* along with t_square_position not intuitively covering a number of potential on_side_penetrated positions, but I haven't gotten around to it.

Leg glider position is another of those cases where someone wrote the original wiki without having any idea of what the position is. And now it's a mix of 6+ different positions.

Actual leg glider is this position:
post #1167446 post #2150741 post #2061457 post #1665955

The penetrating partner should be straddling the leg of the penetrated partner, that's why it's known as 'leg glider'.

I didn't remember those being the examples though. Those two are, in my opinion, closer in the direction of spoon_position, for lack of a better classification.

If you read it again, those two are examples of posts that would be better off elsewhere.

genjar said:
If you read it again, those two are examples of posts that would be better off elsewhere.

I already knew that, and I thought that's what I was agreeing with. I'll tweak my post if that's going to get misread.
The quote itself already says they're not proper leg glider.

_{Sorry if this comes off as snarky, got a bit of a peeve for having my meanings flipped around in interpretation.}