The bulk update request #1494 is active.

Reason:

* 1 ⠀"dominant" in front of the gender

male_dominant has been aliased to dominant_male
ambiguous_dominant has been aliased to dominant_ambiguous
so
female_dominant -> dominant_female and all other variants should also exist too

* 2⠀ _dominated -> submissive_

made this for the tags male_dominated, female_dominated, anthro_dominated and as precaution for all other variants
Technically if the male/female/anthro is dominated indicated by this tag, it means the male/female/anthro is submissive in that context
I suggest we drop the xyz_dominated version and use the submissive_xyz version for less confusion
and the submissive_male, submissive_female, submissive_anthro tags have also the bigger post count

* 3⠀ Removed _dominating implies dominant_ (*1)

male_dominating, female_dominating, anthro_dominating, etc.
male/female/anthro/etc. dominating implies dominant_male/female/anthro/etc.

I had a lot more ideas for this one but I have to rethink about this more it is quite complicated

*⠀3.1⠀ _dominating -> dominant_ (*1)

made a seperate BUR please look down in this Topic
https://e621.net/bulk_update_requests/1497
https://e621.net/forum_posts/319327

* 4 ⠀ missing domination alias to dominant

all other tags like:

• ambiguous_domination ⠀ has been aliased to dominant_ambiguous
• female_domination ⠀⠀ ⠀ has been aliased to dominant_female
• -----
• andromorph_domination⠀ has been aliased to dominant_andromorph
• gynomorph_domination ⠀has been aliased to dominant_gynomorph
• -----
• maleherm_domination ⠀⠀ has been aliased to dominant_maleherm
• male_domination ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀ has been aliased to dominant_male
• anthro_domination ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ has been aliased to dominant_anthro
• feral_domination ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ has been aliased to dominant_feral
• humanoid_domination ⠀⠀ has been aliased to dominant_humanoid
• human_domination ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀has been aliased to dominant_human
• taur_domination ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ has been aliased to dominant_taur

has been aliased like this only

• intersex_domination -> dominant_intersex
• herm_domination -> dominant_herm

seems missing

* 5⠀Removed top and bottom

submissive_top -> power_bottom means the same but power_bottom is more common therm

* 6⠀ extras

found this one as well decorations plural has more posts
christmas_decoration -> christmas_decorations

So that should be everything for now my brain is on fire ...
I wanted to only do 2 or 3 alias, but it went over the top ... how many genders do we have ? 13? WTF

EDIT: The bulk update request #1494 (forum #319272) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

prokura said:
Sorry hit the Submit by accident it is not finished right now

You can use the description of private sets to make drafts if you want, so you don't have to worry with accidently submiting something and you can also save and continue working on it later.

sieghelm_lockayer said:
You can use the description of private sets to make drafts if you want, so you don't have to worry with accidently submiting something and you can also save and continue working on it later.

Sorry I got tired and hit Submit instead of Preview, but I was almost done ... Jesus, this went longer than I expected
it's my second BUR, so I will soon maybe tomorrow look up what "the description of private sets to make drafts" means ...sorry I have right now no idea what you are talking about, and my brain is melting after that ...

Still thanks, I just hope these suggestions will be useful in the end
I go to sleep now X_X

prokura said:

* 3⠀ _dominating implies dominant_ (*1)

male_dominating, female_dominating, anthro_dominating, etc.
male/female/anthro/etc. dominating implies dominant_male/female/anthro/etc.

Why not an alias? You've been quite aggressive with the aliases elsewhere, so it seems weird to use an implication here when the tags appear entirely synonymous.

prokura said:

* 5⠀ top and bottom

submissive_top -> power_bottom means the same but power_bottom is more common therm

Hmmm, not sure about this one. Isn't this like creating the implication dominant -> submissive, which I note has never been proposed? I don't think sex always has to be a zero-sum game.

prokura said:

* 6⠀ extras

found this one as well decorations plural has more posts
christmas_decoration -> christmas_decorations

Please don't do this. BURs aren't rationed, just make a new one if you found an unrelated issue.

Everything else looks good.

This looks pretty good overall. However:

prokura said:

* 3⠀ _dominating implies dominant_ (*1)

male_dominating, female_dominating, anthro_dominating, etc.
male/female/anthro/etc. dominating implies dominant_male/female/anthro/etc.

I had a lot more ideas for this one but I have to rethink about this more it is quite complicated

Shouldn’t these be aliases rather than implications? What is the difference between a female dominating and a dominant female?

Also:

* 5⠀ top and bottom

submissive_top -> power_bottom means the same but power_bottom is more common therm

service_top was recently unaliased from power_bottom so that it can be its own tag due to the fact that sometimes an image can depict a service top or a power bottom by themselves, their position being implied by offscreen characters. So, having one aliased to the other can cause some issues in this case, particularly when an image features only a service top (or submissive top; same thing), and the power bottom is implied and offscreen, thus not taggable as a character. So, for that reason, you should have submissive_top aliased to service_top instead.

Otherwise, this looks good.

wat8548 said:
Why not an alias? You've been quite aggressive with the aliases elsewhere, so it seems weird to use an implication here when the tags appear entirely synonymous.

Hmmm, not sure about this one. Isn't this like creating the implication dominant -> submissive, which I note has never been proposed? I don't think sex always has to be a zero-sum game.

Please don't do this. BURs aren't rationed, just make a new one if you found an unrelated issue.

Everything else looks good.

To 3:
I had more ideas to this and maybe completely get rid of the _dominating tags, but I was thinking it was a little too controversial, and I have to think some more about it ...so I only did the easy Step 1 version there for today.

To 5:
Technically you can have both sides of the same coin, it is just for my understanding the same thing because you will never have a power_bottom without a submissive_top
The term power_bottom is just more known.

To 6: Sorry, found this tag on a dominating post ... it was getting late :-)
On my first alias request I used too many separate alias just thought to add this as well wouldn't hurt but no problem I can give this a separate entry next time if that's necessary.

scaliespe said:
service_top was recently unaliased from power_bottom so that it can be its own tag due to the fact that sometimes an image can depict a service top or a power bottom by themselves, their position being implied by offscreen characters. So, having one aliased to the other can cause some issues in this case, particularly when an image features only a service top (or submissive top; same thing), and the power bottom is implied and offscreen, thus not taggable as a character. So, for that reason, you should have submissive_top aliased to service_top instead.

Ah, I didn't know about the unalias. That explains a lot about why I was having trouble finding counterexamples. In light of this, I definitely think this line should be removed from the BUR.

scaliespe said:
This looks pretty good overall. However:Shouldn’t these be aliases rather than implications? What is the difference between a female dominating and a dominant female?

Also:

service_top was recently unaliased from power_bottom so that it can be its own tag due to the fact that sometimes an image can depict a service top or a power bottom by themselves, their position being implied by offscreen characters. So, having one aliased to the other can cause some issues in this case, particularly when an image features only a service top (or submissive top; same thing), and the power bottom is implied and offscreen, thus not taggable as a character. So, for that reason, you should have submissive_top aliased to service_top instead.

Otherwise, this looks good.

Ok I removed 3 for now and maybe use it later when I figured it out better
my original idea was to use a

imply xyz_dominating -> dominant_xyz
category xyz_dominating -> invalid

with the implications so only xyz_dominating_xyz would be possible, but maybe that is not the best way to do it either.

to 5 I will look to the service_top thing later too ...well that might mean to retag a lot of power_bottom posts with additional top tags ...yay
but I think you are right I removed 5 too

prokura said:
Ok I removed 3 for now and maybe use it later when I figured it out better

You still haven't explained why you didn't just change the implications to aliases. It's a really simple change and it would make the BUR more complete.

The bulk update request #1497 is active.

create alias ambiguous_dominating (0) -> dominant_ambiguous (669)
create alias female_dominating (0) -> dominant_female (42533)
create alias intersex_dominating (0) -> dominant_intersex (6540)
create alias andromorph_dominating (0) -> dominant_andromorph (244)
create alias gynomorph_dominating (0) -> dominant_gynomorph (5018)
create alias herm_dominating (0) -> dominant_herm (421)
create alias maleherm_dominating (0) -> dominant_maleherm (11)
create alias male_dominating (0) -> dominant_male (52787)
create alias anthro_dominating (0) -> dominant_anthro (12482)
create alias feral_dominating (0) -> dominant_feral (4500)
create alias human_dominating (0) -> dominant_human (2434)
create alias humanoid_dominating (0) -> dominant_humanoid (1771)
create alias taur_dominating (0) -> dominant_taur (47)

Reason: addition to the first BUR

*⠀3.1⠀ _dominating -> dominant_ (*1)

https://e621.net/forum_topics/31207

EDIT: The bulk update request #1497 (forum #319327) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

wat8548 said:
You still haven't explained why you didn't just change the implications to aliases. It's a really simple change and it would make the BUR more complete.

I made it separate because I don't want to change the already by some people approved version.
Hope that is the correct way to do it
Thank you all for participating

sieghelm_lockayer said:
You can use the description of private sets to make drafts if you want, so you don't have to worry with accidently submiting something and you can also save and continue working on it later.

I now know what you meant
I was just not familiar with the word drafts, it is quite a strange word if translated in German
I think only people in the banking industry use it here to some extent

but thanks I think I use that "feature" now way too much

prokura said:
maybe it would be better if the dominant_xyz tags are gone for the xyz_dominating tags
so the structure will be similar to the penetrating tags

I don't think it matters too much. As long as the correct aliases exist, they'll automatically clear up any confusion people might have about the exact phraseology. (We got a live demonstration of that around the time the tags were in the middle of being standardised to the dominant_female form, and the bug report thread filled up with people complaining that they couldn't search for the temporarily disabled femdom alias any more.)

Besides, standardised word order isn't always an unambiguous good, particularly when typing out a list of superficially similar tags. You unintentionally demonstrated that in your own post with a missing underscore in female_dominating male.

prokura said:
looking up on the penetration tags, maybe this alias should be better the way around?
dominant_female -> female_dominating

No, I think the current style is clearer and less ambiguous. female_dominating can be read as someone dominating a female, rather than the female doing the dominating (same reason female_domination was considered bad; the noun+verb combo can be read either way, the verb can be either an act on or an act by the noun). In contrast, dominant_female can only be read as a female being dominant (with an adjective+noun combo, the adjective is an attribute of the noun).

wat8548 said:
I don't think it matters too much. As long as the correct aliases exist, they'll automatically clear up any confusion people might have about the exact phraseology. (We got a live demonstration of that around the time the tags were in the middle of being standardised to the dominant_female form, and the bug report thread filled up with people complaining that they couldn't search for the temporarily disabled femdom alias any more.)

Besides, standardised word order isn't always an unambiguous good, particularly when typing out a list of superficially similar tags. You unintentionally demonstrated that in your own post with a missing underscore in female_dominating male.

watsit said:
No, I think the current style is clearer and less ambiguous.

female_dominating

can be read as someone dominating a female, rather than the female doing the dominating (same reason female_domination was considered bad; the noun+verb combo can be read either way, the verb can be either an act on or an act by the noun). In contrast, dominant_female can only be read as a female being dominant (with an adjective+noun combo, the adjective is an attribute of the noun).

@wat8548 @watsit Sorry for changing my mind that much, it takes me literately hours to get the whole complexity of this.

@watsit you are right with the female_domination and female_dominating you can read that either way.

Ok but rethinking again about it ...

It would also seem strange not seeing a proper counterpart like dominant_female to submissive_male.
Otherwise, it should be more like dominating_female with submitting_male in that case.

And I don't see this appealing either.

Because xyz_penetrating can also have two meanings, it just shows this isn't perfect either, so maybe we should also do:

• ⠀⠀ alias xyz_penetrating -> penetration_by_xyz (I don't have a better idea for a true distinct definition)

• ⠀⠀ alias xyz_penetrated -> penetrated_xyz

Just like we are doing now with:

• 3.1 alias xyz_dominating -> dominant_xyz

• 2⠀⠀ alias xyz_dominated -> submissive_xyz

Would that be a good idea?
So everything has a perfect, distinct meaning.

The only big plus the other xyz_penetrating/xyz_dominating versions have is that they will always be adjacent to the xyz_penetrating_xyz/xyz_dominating_xyz tags.

I see that is just a nice to have, like: form over function,
but having perfect distinct tags might rather be the right way to do this.
So everything can just have one meaning.

I think the really smart people say instead: form follows function.
Maybe that's right.

🤔 Who knows?