The bulk update request #1129 is pending approval.

remove implication duo_focus (28553) -> group (476478)
create implication trio_focus (1346) -> group (476478) # duplicate of implication #28681
remove implication threesome (60691) -> group_sex (107970)
remove implication sandwich_position (3960) -> group_sex (107970)
remove implication train_position (2740) -> group_sex (107970)
remove implication triangle_position (815) -> group_sex (107970)
remove implication spitroast (16564) -> group_sex (107970)
remove implication reverse_spitroast (418) -> group_sex (107970)
remove implication collaborative_footjob (255) -> group_sex (107970)

Reason: Per Watsit's comment. With trio being standalone, it no longer makes sense for these tags to implicate group, when they can just as easily be referring to a trio. Calling three people a 'group' seems a bit too generous for me, anyway. collaborative_footjob in particular should be unimplicated, none of the other collaborative_sex tags are implied.

Note that this is rather against the implication request in topic #29287. If trio is going to stay, I'd prefer it to be separate from group, rather than specially part of it.

Not to say that Wikipedia is the word-of-god, but they define group sex as "more than two participants". Two's company, three's a crowd group.

jockjamdoorslam said:
Not to say that Wikipedia is the word-of-god, but they define group sex as "more than two participants". Two's company, three's a crowd group.

Would you want to deimplicate group from group_sex instead, if group_sex can be a trio instead of group? Or alias trio back to group? Or something else?

watsit said:
Would you want to deimplicate group from group_sex instead, if group_sex can be a trio instead of group? Or alias trio back to group? Or something else?

Well, having trio implicate group does make some sense in the case that group_sex is necessarily three or more… which it is. So considering trio to be a group while duo is not is at least not completely arbitrary.

watsit said:
Would you want to deimplicate group from group_sex instead, if group_sex can be a trio instead of group? Or alias trio back to group? Or something else?

I would define a 'group' as more than two, but I've got no problem with keeping the trio and implicating it to group. You said in the other thread that a group should be an "uncountable" number, but I'm a big boy, I can count all the way to ten without using my fingers.

It's pretty odd that for body parts (multi_head, multi_arm, multi_breast, multi_penis etc.) there are implications in place all the way up to ten, but for characters, we've only recently discovered how to count to three.

jockjamdoorslam said:
You said in the other thread that a group should be an "uncountable" number, but I'm a big boy, I can count all the way to ten without using my fingers.

:P I mean as far as could be specified by the tags. As it was before, there were tags for zero_pictured, solo, duo, and group. You couldn't specify anything higher than two/duo with the tags, so group was used when you couldn't tag the count. But now that trio has been unaliased and is usable, you can specify up to three with the tags. So if group is going to be separate from the specific count tags as it has been, something like this BUR should go through. Alternatively, if group is going to be allowed to overlap with the specific count tags, it should overlap with two/duo in addition to three/trio since a group is a set of two or more things, not three or more things.

jockjamdoorslam said:
but for characters, we've only recently discovered how to count to three.

Tags for three and four have existed for some time, they've just been aliased to group as they were not widely used correctly. But recently three/trio was unaliased with the argument that it could be useful, though it's thrown a wrench into the character counting system.

I’d love to have some kind of machine learning algorithm go through all the posts and count all the visible characters and tag appropriately. Then we could count as many characters as we want. Haha

That being said, I could see the utility of tagging 3_characters, 4_characters, and so on, in the same manner that we tag numbers of horns or heads or fingers:

jockjamdoorslam said:
It's pretty odd that for body parts (multi_head, multi_arm, multi_breast, multi_penis etc.) there are implications in place all the way up to ten, but for characters, we've only recently discovered how to count to three.