The bulk update request #2548 is pending approval.

Reason: These first four imminent acts constitute imminent sex acts with 2 or more participants and, therefore, the imminent_sex tag. All of their non-imminent counterparts implicate sex.

The only counterargument I can think of is if sex is already ongoing and the character(s) are about to switch acts then the "sex" is no longer imminent, but about 1/5 of the imminent_sex posts are tagged sex and several of the subjects on the first page of imminent_sex sex are already engaged in sex acts. The other implications, aliases, and invalidation are descriptively self-evident and reflect the classification of the non imminent versions of the tags.

pagefluffa said:
category imminent_breeding -> invalid

Why not alias this to imminent_sex, since "breeding" is typically used to mean "sex"?

pagefluffa said:
but about 1/5 of the imminent_sex posts are tagged sex and several of the subjects on the first page of imminent_sex sex are already engaged in sex acts.

These would be mistags. imminent_x should not also be tagged x. If x is imminent, it's not yet happening, and if x is happening, it's not imminent. The only way it could work is if there's two groups of people, with one group about to do x and another already doing it.

watsit said:
Why not alias this to imminent_sex, since "breeding" is typically used to mean "sex"?

I'm just going by the action on the breeding tag, which was deleted for vagueness. Based off of that, I assumed it wasn't aliased to sex because breeding is a concept focused on reproduction, which could include birthing without sex.

EDIT: I do see how the chronology for imminent_breeding could change the dynamic. Open to further discussing that.

watsit said:These would be mistags. imminent_x should not also be tagged x. If x is imminent, it's not yet happening, and if x is happening, it's not imminent. The only way it could work is if there's two groups of people, with one group about to do x and another already doing it.

Wasn't this addressed here? https://e621.net/forum_topics/30119

Basically, sexual acts implicate sex, but imminent sexual acts implicate imminent_sex, and both can occur at the same time, so both can be tagged at the same time.

pagefluffa said:
Wasn't this addressed here? https://e621.net/forum_topics/30119

Basically, sexual acts implicate sex, but imminent sexual acts implicate imminent_sex, and both can occur at the same time, so both can be tagged at the same time.

Yes, that's why I said "The only way it could work is if there's two groups of people, with one group about to do x and another already doing it". I wager the majority of the time that's not the case, though, and it's just someone erroneously tagging sex (or something that implicates sex) along with imminent_sex (or something that implicates imminent_sex).

watsit said:
Yes, that's why I said "The only way it could work is if there's two groups of people, with one group about to do x and another already doing it". I wager the majority of the time that's not the case, though, and it's just someone erroneously tagging sex (or something that implicates sex) along with imminent_sex (or something that implicates imminent_sex).

So, I think the question is whether imminent_sex means a sex act is imminent or the state of having sex is imminent. I assumed the latter based on how the previous conversation ended with the author not deleting their implications for imminent_sex. Is that incorrect? To use your words:

An imminent sexual act is still an imminent sexual act, even if there's also an on-going sexual act.

Of course, I wrote that steelman argument before I heavily edited my own list to exclude all of the possible solo implications towards sex. We could just be debating semantics that don't affect the outcome at this point, unless there's something still flying over my head, which is a distinct possibility.

Let's try a different angle. Are there any differences between the BUR in this thread and this BUR: https://e621.net/forum_topics/30119? I want to know if there are any important differences between the two so I can determine whether to make changes to this list.

pagefluffa said:
So, I think the question is whether imminent_sex means a sex act is imminent or the state of having sex is imminent. I assumed the latter based on how the previous conversation ended with the author not deleting their implications for imminent_sex. Is that incorrect?

I've been tagging it as in the act itself. For example if there are three characters and two of them are having sex and a third is about to join in, I have been using the imminent_sex tag combined with imminent_(particular act). I'll have to follow this topic to see if that is a mistake.

Actually now I'm second guessing myself. I'm pretty sure I've used imminent_(sex act) without imminent_sex correctly. So implicating the imminent_sex with the other imminent_(act) tag would be wrong.

zeorp said:
I've been tagging it as in the act itself. For example if there are three characters and two of them are having sex and a third is about to join in, I have been using the imminent_sex tag combined with imminent_(particular act). I'll have to follow this topic to see if that is a mistake.

Actually now I'm second guessing myself. I'm pretty sure I've used imminent_(sex act) without imminent_sex correctly. So implicating the imminent_sex with the other imminent_(act) tag would be wrong.

I think either way (imminent_sex as a blanket or specific tag) could work, but the one thing I'm concerned about is having one batch approved and the other not, leading to an inconsistent standard. Maybe I should bump the other topic so that this debate can be merged?