Ok. I am asking this once again, because I am very confused right now. Does this count as penetration:
post #2802166 post #2767342 post #2806825 post #2757918 post #2778652
I have seen a lot of posts like this now. I learned: "things that aren't currently happening shouldn't be tagged" (topic #27067) (you know they were penetrating someone, but you can't see it) Therefor, I always remove the penetration tags on them.

I looked in the tag history and saw that it was added by users with enormous amounts of tag edits. ^{_{(not the mentioned posts. I don't want to do name-dropping)}}
My thought on it was: "someone with over 100k edits will do some mistakes" and I just ignored it. But like I said, I saw it a couple of times now.

And today I saw an admin adding those tags to posts like these. Out of curiosity, I searched on their profile for: added tags:penetration + final tags: after_sex
Not all of them are like these posts, but the hit rate is high.

Should I ignore it as "it was probably a mistake by those/this users/admin" or is my understanding of the penetration tags wrong?
(last time answer: topic #29214)

I'm not sure if there's an official stance, but I wouldn't tag any of those with penetration. If the action clearly isn't happening, it shouldn't be tagged.

strikerman said:
I'm not sure if there's an official stance, but I wouldn't tag any of those with penetration. If the action clearly isn't happening, it shouldn't be tagged.

Right. There are tags like after_anal, after_vaginal, imminent_anal, imminent_oral, etc, to indicate penetration of those orifices did or is about to happen, but I wouldn't use the penetration tags themselves unless penetration is currently happening.

dubsthefox said:
I have seen a lot of posts like this now. I learned: "things that aren't currently happening shouldn't be tagged" (topic #27067) (you know they were penetrating someone, but you can't see it)

Just want to mention (though it might not be the point you're trying to put across), we do tag penetration on certain posts where the context implies penetration, even though we cannot see it happening outwardly. For example, when there is obvious pleasure between both parties, cum_splatter between their groins, thrusting motion, etc. Often tagged as ambiguous_penetration.

In terms of whether or not we do tag sex position on after_sex or even "before/no sex" posts, I have been pushing for discussion over it on topic #30208. My stance is that as long as the characters are still in said position, before or after sex, it should be tagged in. This would of course require sex to be unimplied from the sex position tags.

Should I ignore it as "it was probably a mistake by those/this users/admin" or is my understanding of the penetration tags wrong?
(last time answer: topic #29214)

As for the actual question, I would say that all of these are not penetration. Most of these might just be mistags.
For the first post (post #2802166) which I had tagged, I might have misinterpreted *_penetrated as being "in the process of, or had been, penetrated by X" but the wiki defines it as ongoing penetration.

watsit said:
There are tags like after_anal, after_vaginal, imminent_anal, imminent_oral, etc...

Good to know. I didn't know these, yet.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Just want to mention (though it might not be the point you're trying to put across), we do tag penetration on certain posts where the context implies penetration...

I know, there are some exceptions for some tags. But overall, TWYS is the way to go ^^

And thanks again, to all, for the help ^^