The bulk update request #499 has been rejected.

create alias taker_pov (3) -> bottom_pov (466)
create alias receiving_pov (2250) -> bottom_pov (466)
create alias pov_blowjob (750) -> fellatio_pov (650)
create alias blowjob_pov (0) -> fellatio_pov (650)
create alias giving_pov (0) -> top_pov (166)
create alias recieving_pov (0) -> bottom_pov (466)
create alias penetrated_pov (351) -> bottom_pov (466)
create alias penetrative_pov (0) -> top_pov (166)
remove implication penetrating_pov (19327) -> first_person_view (81994)
create implication bottom_pov (466) -> first_person_view (81994)
create implication top_pov (166) -> first_person_view (81994)
create implication fellatio_pov (650) -> first_person_view (81994)
create implication fellatio_pov (650) -> fellatio (156868)
create implication cunnilingus_pov (150) -> cunnilingus (35160)
create implication cunnilingus_pov (150) -> first_person_view (81994)

Reason:

topic #22748 and topic #23684 are the sources of the errors # duplicate of has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through BUR in the first two lines

Update: Thanks to @Rainbow_Dash, the issue is now fixed and the BUR is good to go!

topic #22748 is ambiguous, so I decided to tidy up a little bit

Also standardisation of a subset of POV tags

I chose top_pov and bottom_pov over receiving_pov and penetrating_pov because the latter would not be applicable to cunnilingus, for example.

IMPORTANT: Reminder to alias penetrating_pov -> top_pov after this is (hopefully) approved

EDIT: The bulk update request #499 (forum #301536) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.

Could anyone help me deal with the # duplicate of has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through BUR error messages? I forgot what they mean

You might have to change the script from alias to update (that seems to be a good workaround for that error message, at least from my experience).

d.d.m. said:
You might have to change the script from alias to update (that seems to be a good workaround for that error message, at least from my experience).

But then the tag relationships would stay incorrect and might be forgotten, which would create complications in the future. Don't worry, though; I found the sources of the error (topic #22748 and topic #23684).

Thanks for the attention! I feel a bit sad when nobody looks at my forum posts... Could you please consider the proposal in topic #28122 if you have time?

gattonero2001 said:
But then the tag relationships would stay incorrect and might be forgotten, which would create complications in the future. Don't worry, though; I found the sources of the error (topic #22748 and topic #23684).

Thanks for the attention! I feel a bit sad when nobody looks at my forum posts... Could you please consider the proposal in topic #28122 if you have time?

I might be misunderstanding how the update script works. I thought update acted the same as alias, but also transferred over the aliases/implications on the tag being aliased away to the tag being kept.

And sure thing, I'll get to topic #28122 sometime soon. I intend to comment there soon, but I'm still recovering from a cold and still have trouble getting to all the forum topics that I'm wanting to address.

d.d.m. said:
I might be misunderstanding how the update script works. I thought update acted the same as alias, but also transferred over the aliases/implications on the tag being aliased away to the tag being kept.

I don't know how it works either, so my understanding of it might be incorrect, but I presumed that it only changed the posts. Any staff member reading this, could you please clarify?

And sure thing, I'll get to topic #28122 sometime soon. I intend to comment there soon, but I'm still recovering from a cold and still have trouble getting to all the forum topics that I'm wanting to address.

Please do not feel like I am rushing you. By all means, take all the time that you could possibly need/want.
I wish you a good recovery.

gattonero2001 said:
I chose top_pov and bottom_pov over receiving_pov and penetrating_pov because the latter would not be applicable to cunnilingus, for example.

I think top/bottom would cause confusion over which should be applied. For example, cowgirl_position bottom_pov has 5 posts; two where it's the "top's" POV from the bottom, two where it's the "bottom's" POV from the top, and one flash I can't see. "Top" and "bottom" are confusing terms for who's giving and receiving because the one giving is not necessarily on top, and despite the word "top" carrying a sense of control or command in a situation, the "bottom" can just as well be the one taking charge (see power bottom). The terms "top" and "bottom" give the sense of a power dynamic that doesn't necessarily exist (or exist in the way it's implied), or of physical positioning that isn't necessarily correct, when used as synonyms for the giver and receiver.

gattonero2001 said:
Please do not feel like I am rushing you. By all means, take all the time that you could possibly need/want.
I wish you a good recovery.

It's alright, I'm still fairly de-energized, but I'm already feeling better than how I was feeling a few days ago (it's also just a normal cold).

watsit said:

I agree with most of your arguments, but I still believe that "top" and "bottom" are superior to the alternatives because the "giving"/"receiving" pair still creates a large amount of ambiguity in cunnilingus posts. Most taggers are likely to be aware of the sexual meaning of "top" and "bottom" and the physical positioning issue can probably be solved with a few wiki edits and a little bit of cleanup.

Regarding the implied power dynamic, that is illustrated by submissive_pov and dominant_pov. Even though we know that it isn't very often the case, when considering tag-related decisions we should presume that all taggers read the wiki. This might require more cleanup than most people would like, but it is the lesser of two evils.

In resume, I believe that the problems caused by the use of giving/receiving are more significant than the problems caused by the use of top/bottom. However, if you have any suggestion for a more adequate pair, I would be interested in reading it. Thank you for contributing to the discussion.

Giving and receiving make more sense than top and bottom. You can be a bottom who gives, or a top who receives.

There's also cunnilingus_pov, though there's not many posts which it applies to.

furrin_gok said:
Giving and receiving make more sense than top and bottom. You can be a bottom who gives, or a top who receives.

Could you clarify your argument further, please? I'm not sure if I understood what you meant.

clawdragons said:
There's also cunnilingus_pov, though there's not many posts which it applies to.

Thank you, I didn't see that in the tag search.

gattonero2001 said:
Could you clarify your argument further, please? I'm not sure if I understood what you meant.

"Top" and "bottom" can refer to multiple things, which don't always align. For instance, "top" can mean either a penetrating character (through the concept of a penetrating character being in control or "on top" of things, which itself isn't always true), or a character that is physically on top of another. Consequently, it's possible for the "top" to be on the bottom, or for the "top" to not be on top of the situation, making it ambiguous what it means or which character it would apply to. I would strongly suggest against using "top" and "bottom" for anything other than physical positioning, but even there a disambiguation might be in order.

watsit said:

I reiterate my point that most users are likely to be aware of the sexual meaning of "top/bottom" and its dissociation from the concept of physical positioning. The already existing tags used to describe the "control" aspect are dominant_pov and submissive_pov. Furthermore, it is important to remind ourselves that nonpenetrative sex must be considered when making this kind of tag relationship decision. For example, the usage of giving and receiving in the context of both fellatio and cunnilingus would be either counterintuitive (the one who gives is the "receiver" and the one who receives is the "giver") or inconsistent regarding its usage to describe vaginal/anal/cloacal/et cetera penetration.

I thought about changing the end tags to something like passive and active, but that would still create much ambiguity. I agree that "top/bottom" are not ideal, but to discard them it is necessary to have a superior alternative.

gattonero2001 said:
I reiterate my point that most users are likely to be aware of the sexual meaning of "top/bottom" and its dissociation from the concept of physical positioning.

Maybe, but there are still posts where "top" tags were used to refer to physical placement in a sexual scenario, and despite me being a native english speaker who's well aware of what top and bottom mean colloquially when having sex, I find myself doing a double-take. I think it's ambiguous enough and not very accurate to what it really means, that better terms can be used for tagging purposes.

gattonero2001 said:
Furthermore, it is important to remind ourselves that nonpenetrative sex must be considered when making this kind of tag relationship decision.

That actually makes me wonder. Who is considered the top/bottom for cunnilingus? I never thought about that before. If it was a blowjob, the one having their genitals stimulated would be the top since their penis is penetrating someone's mouth, but with cunnilingus, the one doing the stimulating is penetrating the other character's labia with their tongue (like rimming, the "bottom" is the one having their anus licked even when it's a case of face-sitting). So oral sex has top/bottom reversed depending on whether the one being stimulated has a penis or vagina? That's even more confusing, especially if the one being pleasured is ambiguous_gender...

watsit said:
Maybe, but there are still posts where "top" tags were used to refer to physical placement in a sexual scenario, and despite me being a native english speaker who's well aware of what top and bottom mean colloquially when having sex, I find myself doing a double-take. I think it's ambiguous enough and not very accurate to what it really means, that better terms can be used for tagging purposes.

Yes, better terms can be used, but in my opinion they have not been suggested yet. English is not my first language and I consider top/bottom to be the least ambiguous option in this situation. If more people shared their thoughts, we could put forward a few competing propositions and vote on it, but the forum is unfortunately often a relatively "deserted" space.

That actually makes me wonder. Who is considered the top/bottom for cunnilingus? I never thought about that before. If it was a blowjob, the one having their genitals stimulated would be the top since their penis is penetrating someone's mouth, but with cunnilingus, the one doing the stimulating is penetrating the other character's labia with their tongue (like rimming, the "bottom" is the one having their anus licked even when it's a case of face-sitting). So oral sex has top/bottom reversed depending on whether the one being stimulated has a penis or vagina? That's even more confusing, especially if the one being pleasured is ambiguous_gender...

In my personal interpretation, in the context of oral sex the top is by definition the one being pleasured, regardless of physical characteristics. The "bottom" would then be the one stimulating their partner's penis and/or vulva and/or anus in every case with no exceptions.

furrin_gok said:
You can be a bottom who gives, or a top who receives.

I had not understood this part of @Furrin_Gok's argument. I presume this is related to your interpretation of top/bottom dynamics in oral sex?

gattonero2001 said:
Yes, better terms can be used, but in my opinion they have not been suggested yet.

I think penetrating_* and penetrated_* are better options. They're not perfect, but it's more clear who it applies to in more situations.

gattonero2001 said:
In my personal interpretation, in the context of oral sex the top is by definition the one being pleasured, regardless of physical characteristics. The "bottom" would then be the one stimulating their partner's penis and/or vulva and/or anus in every case with no exceptions.

That would go against how rimming is generally considered, as it would be paired with power_bottom when the one being licked is taking charge.

watsit said:
I think penetrating_* and penetrated_* are better options. They're not perfect, but it's more clear who it applies to in more situations.

The problem is that they do not apply at all to some situations. Even if they are more adequate on average, there still remains the issue of how to deal with the invalid associations, and the standardisation process is disrupted. Having a pair of tags for cunnilingus + rimming and another one for everything else is not worth it.

That would go against how rimming is generally considered, as it would be paired with power_bottom when the one being licked is taking charge.

In most of redrusker's rimming posts, the character being rimmed is explicitly stated or heavily implied to be a top. I believe that this might be a question of differing perspectives.

gattonero2001 said:
The problem is that they do not apply at all to some situations. Even if they are more adequate on average, there still remains the issue of how to deal with the invalid associations, and the standardisation process is disrupted. Having a pair of tags for cunnilingus + rimming and another one for everything else is not worth it.

While not the most obvious, I do think they still work for cunnilingus and rimming. The one being pleasured has their orifice penetrated with their partner's tongue, and the one doing the pleasuring is penetrating their partner's orifice with their tongue. Even if a post doesn't specifically show penetration, I think that's a good enough justification for why/how to apply them for cunnilingus and rimming (again, admittedly not perfect, but it does avoid the mess and ambiguity caused by top and bottom).

gattonero2001 said:
In most of redrusker's rimming posts, the character being rimmed is explicitly stated or heavily implied to be a top. I believe that this might be a question of differing perspectives.

I think that just goes to show how ambiguous and up to interpretation "top" and "bottom" can be, and why they should be avoided in reference to sex. Even with relatively vanilla sex, cowgirl_position bottom_pov has a (roughly) 50/50 split on what bottom_pov is intended to mean.

Hello, would you mind continuing to label BURs in the subject line so we can see them from the listing? It makes it easier for other users to find conversations they're interested in. Thank you!

watsit said:
While not the most obvious, I do think they still work for cunnilingus and rimming. The one being pleasured has their orifice penetrated with their partner's tongue, and the one doing the pleasuring is penetrating their partner's orifice with their tongue. Even if a post doesn't specifically show penetration, I think that's a good enough justification for why/how to apply them for cunnilingus and rimming (again, admittedly not perfect, but it does avoid the mess and ambiguity caused by top and bottom).

That would fall into the inconsistence issue that I already mentioned. Besides, there can be oral sex without any penetration at all, just licking. In those cases, any reference to penetration would be completely inadequate.

I think that just goes to show how ambiguous and up to interpretation "top" and "bottom" can be, and why they should be avoided in reference to sex. Even with relatively vanilla sex, cowgirl_position bottom_pov has a (roughly) 50/50 split on what bottom_pov is intended to mean.

That search returns five results. Three of them are correct according to my interpretation. The other two can be corrected manually. When "top/bottom pov" get wikis, there will probably be no need of further cleanup except for the regular and expected kind.

ccoyote said:
Hello, would you mind continuing to label BURs in the subject line so we can see them from the listing? It makes it easier for other users to find conversations they're interested in. Thank you!

I have added BUR to the titles of my nine currently pending ones as requested. Please feel free to share your thoughts on any of them.

The bulk update request #499 (forum #301536) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.