The bulk update request #1408 is active.

remove alias uncut_penis (0) -> uncut (0)
remove alias uncircumcised (0) -> uncut (0)
remove implication uncut (0) -> penis (1512257)
remove implication uncut (0) -> foreskin (158241)

Reason: Welcome everyone to the great penis debate! This has been heatedly debated before, and hopefully we can settle it this time with a solution that more people are happy with.

Currently, we use the tag uncut to refer to an uncircumcised penis, which still has its foreskin attached. We also have it implicate foreskin for some strange reason.

The logic at the time was something along the lines of "but what if the foreskin is in the image but not attached?" and "it should imply foreskin because then you can break it down into attached or not."

These are both technically correct, but totally make an enormous accommodation for a handful of tags at the cost of the convenience of about 75k tags. We have fallen into this logic trap many times before where we did it because it was technically correct, but sacrificed searchability and intuitiveness. It also suggests that a cut penis is the natural state, when it is not. This has added confusion to the mix, especially among non-native English speakers.

For this reason I propose we simply alias them into foreskin and use foreskin and circumcised as the two states of the human penis. Animal humanoids that have varying degrees of foreskins and sheaths will still be tagged as deemed appropriate, the default being to not tag either foreskin or circumcised.

For the rare case where a foreskin is not attached but in the image (like in a jar or something), then we can just make a new tag for that instance specifically. This will help it be more searchable (rather than just trying to do foreskin -uncut) and also not interfere with the normal tag.

For the actual act of circumcising someone we will discuss it in part II

EDIT: The bulk update request #1408 (forum #317912) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

I agree, in principle.
If the foreskin is not attached, it can be tagged as severed_foreskin.

bitwolfy said:
I agree, in principle.
If the foreskin is not attached, it can be tagged as severed_foreskin.

Yep. Last time this debate was raised someone pointed out that we tag amputees explicitly, we don't have a special tag for every limb still attached to a character. It isn't a perfect analogy because tags like legs are sufficiently common that they've been invalidated, and additionally this site plays host to a wide variety of non-human penises without foreskin, or sometimes even foreskin where there shouldn't be.

In fact, I'm just going to copy-paste my post from last time if we're having a debate dump thread:

wat8548 said:

dubsthefox said:
Edit: if the question was: "do we need uncut and foreskin", I'd say no.

I am pretty sure that was the question. Personally I'd be happy with aliasing one to the other, or even invalidate both using the armpits tag as precedent. So images with an excessive focus on foreskin could still be tagged as foreskin_fetish or more specific tags such as foreskin_pull, but the lack of a circumcision is no more eligible to be tagged than the absence of other body modifications such as scars or tattoos. Apart from anything else, this would save a lot of time squinting at stylised erections trying to work out if there could theoretically have been foreskin there or not. One of my main objections to uncut as a tag is that it's one of those "What They Do/Don't Teach You In Harvard Business School" tags, in that in theory, every humanoid_penis should have at least one of the two present, but there frequently isn't enough information to decide either way. Either including circumcised in a search or adding it to your blacklist should be sufficient to cater to all preferences.

On a similar note, we have a glans tag which I have never felt the need to use.

The bulk update request #1408 (forum #317912) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #1416 is active.

create alias uncircumcised (0) -> foreskin (158241)
create implication foreskin (158241) -> penis (1512257)

Reason:

EDIT: The bulk update request #1416 (forum #318068) has failed: Error: Alias would modify other aliases or implications through transitive relationships. (create alias uncut -> foreskin)

EDIT: The bulk update request #1416 (forum #318068) has failed: Error: Alias would modify other aliases or implications through transitive relationships. (create alias uncut -> foreskin)

EDIT: The bulk update request #1416 (forum #318068) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #1416 (forum #318068) has failed: Error: Alias would modify other aliases or implications through transitive relationships. (create alias uncut -> foreskin)

The bulk update request #1416 (forum #318068) has failed: Error: Alias would modify other aliases or implications through transitive relationships. (create alias uncut -> foreskin)

The bulk update request #1416 (forum #318068) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

Wow that one really didn't want to go through.
Let the record show that I had to remove it from the BUR and push it manually

rainbow_dash said:
Wow that one really didn't want to go through.
Let the record show that I had to remove it from the BUR and push it manually

the site itself was sending a -1 for the BUR

Ayyyyy im so glad this finally got put through

Finally!! There were weeks where I would go back and tag uncut on posts with foreskin just because it was the term I usually used to search and there was a TON of missing images! This change is only beneficial imo.

The bulk update request #2428 is active.

create alias uncut_penis (0) -> foreskin (158241)

Reason: RD forgot to reinstate this alias from the OP, and it's starting to creep back into use.

EDIT: The bulk update request #2428 (forum #333626) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

The bulk update request #2428 (forum #333626) has been approved by @bitWolfy.