The tag implication #40201 partially_visible_genitals -> barely_visible_genitals has been rejected.

Reason: It is bassicaly the same, but barely_visible_genitals has more posts so could we just merge them together?

One example

partially_visible_genitals
post #2612343

barely_visble_genitals
post #2780682

EDIT: The tag implication partially_visible_genitals -> barely_visible_genitals (forum #311601) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.

barely_visible_genitalia should be used when you can't make them out from the thumbnail alone and have to take a closer look. I understand partially_visible_genitals as showing half of a 10 inch penis which wouldn't be barely visible at all. The implication would make more sense the other way around but I don't know if that tag is even needed to begin with.

earlopain said:
barely_visible_genitalia should be used when you can't make them out from the thumbnail alone and have to take a closer look. I understand partially_visible_genitals as showing half of a 10 inch penis which wouldn't be barely visible at all. The implication would make more sense the other way around but I don't know if that tag is even needed to begin with.

Then instead of a tag implication we should add a tag description to make it more clear what it means.

I deleted my comment from earlier because I misread this thread as an alias and because I wasn't very clear about some things. I'll rewrite my thoughts now:

barely_visible_genitalia is used when the genitalia is mostly obscured to the point that it is hard to make out from the thumbnail post #1751240 post #1284157. Per the Wiki, which was updated a bit yesterday, it's used for

Posts where the genitals are not obvious in the thumbnail, and remain difficult to see when viewing the actual post.

If anything, the implication should be flipped to barely_visible_genitalia -> partially_visible_genitals, since not all "partially" visible genitals are obscured to the point of being "barely" visible, but all "barely" visible genitals are "partially" visible.

It's worth noting that there are already a lot of established tags that can be used in situations where genitals are partially obscured: barely_visible_genitalia, penis_base, poking_out, penis_through_leghole, wardrobe_malfunction, covering, convenient_censorship, etc. Do we even need partially_visible_genitals? It might be useful to keep as an umbrella tag for these types of things. On the other hand, it also might be a challenge to even define it. We couldn't just say "only part of the genitals are visible", as even a handjob would count by that definition, due to the hand covering a part of the penis. However, if we do want to keep using partially_visible_genitals, there's some things I think we should do first:

• Rename partially_visible_genitals to partially_visible_genitalia to be consistent with barely_visible_genitalia (as evident by the mistake in this thread title, this would be confusing if not fixed)

• Define the tag with a Wiki

• Have penis_base, poking_out, penis_through_leghole, and any other relevant tags implicate it

The tag implication partially_visible_genitals -> barely_visible_genitals (forum #311601) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.