The bulk update request #5186 is pending approval.

create alias adult_on_baby (743) -> adult_on_young (10335)
create alias adult_on_loli (375) -> adult_on_young (10335)
create alias adult_on_shota (1) -> adult_on_young (10335)
create alias adult_on_toddler (38) -> adult_on_young (10335)
create alias adult_on_teenager (9) -> adult_on_young (10335)
create alias baby_penetrated (99) -> baby (5082)
create alias baby_penetrating (13) -> baby (5082)
create alias child_dom_parent_sub (6) -> child (31084)
create alias child_on_adult (0) -> child (31084)
create alias child_penetrated (295) -> child (31084)
create alias child_penetrating (94) -> child (31084)
create alias cub_fingered (0) -> fingering (45708)
create alias cub_male (0) -> shota (44042)
create alias cub_on_adult (0) -> cub (0)
create alias cub_rape (3) -> rape (46171)
create alias cub_raped (6) -> rape (46171)
create alias cub_receiving (0) -> cub (0)

Reason: Mods told me "Approved: The best way to resolve all of these would be to submit a Bulk Update Request on the forum, and request mass deletion of these. That way the community can have involvement, and items can be added or subtracted from the list."

I didn't even know that was a thing, and I have no idea if I'm doing this right at all even with reading the wiki page but here is my shot at this.

My issue was user 449843, currently named Garbagios, is making up a shit ton of redundant tags and the only person using any of these tags seems to be them. The tags aren't helping anyone find anything, especially when all they're doing is adding half a dozen tags to a single image that all mean younger_penetrated. Then another dozen tags to the same image to add male and female versions of a bunch of other tags. Some of these would technically alias a couple things since all of their tagging is simply combining other tags together for no reason, but I'm not sure if I can make multiple aliases with a BUR. They are also tagging a bunch of non evolved pokemon as young and cub even though some of these posts have gone SIXTEEN YEARS without the tags. They seem to be changing tags to fit their own view of things. I don't think the BUR can fix them tagging pokemon wrong so I was kinda hoping there was an undo all on their tagging and users can fix the relatively minor decent tagging they have done while the BUR prevents them from making up more redundant tags. About half of the tags in this list they are using, the rest showed up in tag search and look absolutely useless or so few people use them they aren't doing anything other than clutter up the tags, so we might as well get rid of them/fix them. I opened this can of worms, might as well see it through. Some might be better as implications than aliases but I'd rather see what other people think first. I prefer a cleaner tag list than a bunch tags that are so specific that while yes, that is technically in this image, but no one will ever search for that so why add the tag.

There is also some other minor tag fixes along this line of reasoning. Adult_on_cub has 5.4k posts but adult_on_young only has 1.4k. Shouldn't it be adult_on_young, since all cub is young, but not all young is cub, and you can just search that and cub to get the results you want?

cub_receiving - I saw this and said, "What the hell does that mean?" Receiving what? If you go up to someone and tell them your receiving and leave it at that they're going to stare at you like your crazy because that doesn't mean anything on its own. A cub receiving oral says the tag page. Then cub and oral. Why make up another tag for this? And there's a hell of a lot more than 234 posts of cubs receiving oral so either there's a better tag or this should just go

older_on_XYZ - Just need to go. We have older_male, older_female, young/cub/baby etc. These tags are too general to be useful for searching. Just adds clutter to the tags

younger_feral - implies a bunch of other younger tags exist, such as younger_anthro, but they aren't in use.

feral_penetrating_XYZ. Human, anthro, feral, humanoid are being used a lot, but compared to the number of images tagged feral_penetrating, people dont seem to be using feral_penetrating_(male/female/gyno/andro/herm) nearly as much. Feral_penetrating_gynomorph has 15 images while feral_penetrating + gynomorph has 933. If thats what your looking for using the more specific tag is useless if everyone doesn't use it

The more I look into tags the more I see that need fixed so I'm just going to have to stop adding tags here.

Wiki page says errors should just be removed and added to the forum post so here they are. Also says 25 entries max so this is going to have to get split up.

alias adult_on_cub -> adult_on_young # duplicate of has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through BUR
alias child_on_child -> young_on_young # duplicate of has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through BUR
alias cub_penetrated -> cub # duplicate of has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through BUR
alias cub_penetrating -> cub # duplicate of has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through BUR
alias cub_domination -> young_domination Antecedent name has already been taken (create alias cub_domination -> young_domination)

You can actually put these all on the same topic. Just copy "39325" to it next time. Also, are you nuking a ton of tags?

alphamule said:
You can actually put these all on the same topic. Just copy "39325" to it next time. Also, are you nuking a ton of tags?

My bad. Also yeah, I guess so. If only a single person is adding a bunch of tags and the tags literally mean something else already then they're pretty much useless. Too many different tags saying the same thing just makes it hard to find things. Rule34 is a shitshow with it.

I agree with most of these, except adult_on_toddler, adult_on_teenager, adult_on_child, and adult_on_baby. adult_on_young is very broad, and I could easily see people blacklisting adult_on_child/baby while leaving the more general adult_on_young.

scth said:
I agree with most of these, except adult_on_toddler, adult_on_teenager, adult_on_child, and adult_on_baby. adult_on_young is very broad, and I could easily see people blacklisting adult_on_child/baby while leaving the more general adult_on_young.

Adult_on_young and baby gets the same result

You can blacklist combinations of tags without blacklisting the entirety of adult_on_young

I have to downvote some of these as they mix just too many different things, some which make sense, others which don't.
Example: young_penetrating makes more sense than child_penetrating with some other discussions going on, especially.

bloodreaver01 said:
Adult_on_young and baby gets the same result

You can blacklist combinations of tags without blacklisting the entirety of adult_on_young

Not necessarily (more than 2 characters).

I generally disagree with aliasing away tags with hundreds of uses, at least as part of a large BUR. Tags like that have clear demand, and while they can be aliased away with discussion, there needs to be discussion particular to each tag at that level.

Edit: looking through, it does appear that there are relatively few situations where adult_on_young plus a more specific tag isn't enough. adult_on_young group only has a few hundred posts. I still think more discussion on those tags specifically would be good though, rather than lumping them in with the rest.

In the future, you can specify a topic number (in this case it'd be 39325) to concentrate discussion for large BURs like this one into a single thread, versus the 6 you have now.

lafcadio said:
In the future, you can specify a topic number (in this case it'd be 39325) to concentrate discussion for large BURs like this one into a single thread, versus the 6 you have now.

Is it possible to report them to get them all merged to one topic with multiple BURs? Only half joking, hehe.

I'm going through them all looking for redundancy and things that are implied by the 'other path' that the alias can't go (only one alias path possible at same time).
https://e621.net/posts?tags=adult_on_baby+-baby https://e621.net/posts?tags=adult_on_baby+baby OK, a WTF on these being entirely different results.
https://e621.net/posts?tags=adult_on_loli+-loli There seems to be 9 without, and 139 with loli tag.
https://e621.net/posts?tags=adult_on_shota+-shota Yeah, seems this would be better served with younger_male tag? It seems that adult_on_shota has a lot of results both with and without younger_male.
https://e621.net/posts?tags=adult_on_toddler+-toddler+ Only 1 result without toddler tag and... either it needs toddler tag or adult_on_toddler is wrong.
https://e621.net/posts?tags=adult_on_teenager+teenager https://e621.net/posts?tags=adult_on_teenager+-teenager Sigh... another one of THOSE tags. Again with entirely different results with and without secondary/implied tag. Even if we end up keeping these tags, they definitely need an implication.

Adding more as I go, but so far I see a lot that need a tag cleanup before we can even apply this BUR. Either the x_on_y tag is wrong, or the x or y tags are. With consistent implied tags like baby/loli/shota/toddler/teenager, I would approve that part of the BUR. I guess it makes sense to have adult_on_young/adult on youth(aliased to former) tag alongside younger_* and Y tags to search for these?

*_rape tags in general sometimes have confusing names. All three combinations seem about as used: ++ -+ +- I would have thought that anthro_rape was the exact opposite of anthro_raped, and it was just poorly worded so people mixed them up. I don't find myself likely to search these 2 tags, but others might find a use for them? I'm trying to figure alternative ways of searching for the same thing. If we did somehow keep anthro_rape, it should probably be split into anthro_raped and anthro_rapist. Given that rapist is not a tag, but rape is... *YEETag*

post #4075821 Has baby and shota_penetrating, already. Following the logic of this BUR, it should probably be younger_penetrating/youth_penetrating or something?
0 results for baby_penetrating -baby and 1 result for baby_penetrating -shota_penetrating and that one looks like it should be tagged. Hilariously, it has young_on_young but not child_on_child tag, even though it's very young characters.

child_dom_parent_sub only has 4 results, so making sure it has young_domination/younger_dom_older_sub tags if needed... Oh, and changed younger_dominant to young_domination as it's a single result for that tag variant. Parent should be a lore tag, as well. Hmm, the one with sleep sex tag is dom/sub situation, right? post #1124151 might not even qualify because of TWYS vs TWYK.

scth said:
Not necessarily (more than 2 characters).

I generally disagree with aliasing away tags with hundreds of uses, at least as part of a large BUR. Tags like that have clear demand, and while they can be aliased away with discussion, there needs to be discussion particular to each tag at that level.

Edit: looking through, it does appear that there are relatively few situations where adult_on_young plus a more specific tag isn't enough. adult_on_young group only has a few hundred posts. I still think more discussion on those tags specifically would be good though, rather than lumping them in with the rest.

At least in the case of adult_on_baby (since there are so few posts of it), blacklisting adult_on_young and baby DOES remove every adult on baby image, but that wont be true for every tag. But again, we don't need combinations of EVERY tag out there. I'm sure there are plenty of people who wished they never got rid of the male_renamon tag but they did because we don't need every feasible search to have its own tag. There are ways to find things without cluttering up the tags.

scth said:
I agree with most of these, except adult_on_toddler, adult_on_teenager, adult_on_child, and adult_on_baby. adult_on_young is very broad, and I could easily see people blacklisting adult_on_child/baby while leaving the more general adult_on_young.

We don't need that specific distinction and to be frank, I like none of these [someone]_on_[someone] tags like anthro_on_feral. Maybe alias them to adult/young to align with [gender]/[gender] tags?

wolfmanfur said:
We don't need that specific distinction and to be frank, I like none of these [someone]_on_[someone] tags like anthro_on_feral. Maybe alias them to adult/young to align with [gender]/[gender] tags?

Adult/young format would be more consistent with other tags than adult_on_young. Anyone tagging adult_on_young is going to get implication to young, but not the others, yeah. This is why I mentioned that reasoning above.

child_on_adult -> post #3530621 seems to be male/male shota and older_penetrated? The other 3 results with the Pokemon characters, I'm not sure.

child_penetrat* should probably be aliased to younger_penetrat*? We really, really don't need 5 different versions of the same thing when we have tags like child, right?

https://e621.net/posts?tags=cub_dominating_cub++-cub+ No results. https://e621.net/posts?tags=cub_dominating_cub++-young_on_young 8 results. https://e621.net/posts?tags=cub_dominating_cub+-dominant+ Wayyyy too many results but if young_domination triggers an implication chain for domination, this will work fine.

https://e621.net/post_versions?search%5Bpost_id%5D=2527139 young_on_young_child What is this tag? I guess you can add that to the BUR. XD

Hmm, young_domination and dominant_young might need a further look? If the intent was to be opposite, maybe reword? If not, then cleanup then alias?

https://e621.net/posts?tags=cub_dominating_cub+-young_on_young+-child_on_child The remaining 4 look like a victim of copypasta tagging. Some don't seem to have said dominant cub in the actual image, or am I missing it?

https://e621.net/posts/2695742?q=cub_fingered Already has younger_fingered tag. This seems ready.

Went ahead and manually split the cub_male tag in both results. BTW, there's a male_cub tag that needs looking at. Hilariously a ton of these female cubs are solo with that tag. IT NEVER ENDS *laughs insanely* https://e621.net/posts?tags=female+cub+solo+female_cub <--- Cleaning these up at least. :(

alphamule said:
Is it possible to report them to get them all merged to one topic with multiple BURs? Only half joking, hehe.

I'm going through them all looking for redundancy and things that are implied by the 'other path' that the alias can't go (only one alias path possible at same time).
https://e621.net/posts?tags=adult_on_baby+-baby https://e621.net/posts?tags=adult_on_baby+baby OK, a WTF on these being entirely different results.
https://e621.net/posts?tags=adult_on_loli+-loli There seems to be 9 without, and 139 with loli tag.
https://e621.net/posts?tags=adult_on_shota+-shota Yeah, seems this would be better served with younger_male tag? It seems that adult_on_shota has a lot of results both with and without younger_male.
https://e621.net/posts?tags=adult_on_toddler+-toddler+ Only 1 result without toddler tag and... either it needs toddler tag or adult_on_toddler is wrong.
https://e621.net/posts?tags=adult_on_teenager+teenager https://e621.net/posts?tags=adult_on_teenager+-teenager Sigh... another one of THOSE tags. Again with entirely different results with and without secondary/implied tag. Even if we end up keeping these tags, they definitely need an implication.

Adding more as I go, but so far I see a lot that need a tag cleanup before we can even apply this BUR. Either the x_on_y tag is wrong, or the x or y tags are. With consistent implied tags like baby/loli/shota/toddler/teenager, I would approve that part of the BUR. I guess it makes sense to have adult_on_young/adult on youth(aliased to former) tag alongside younger_* and Y tags to search for these?

*_rape tags in general sometimes have confusing names. All three combinations seem about as used: ++ -+ +- I would have thought that anthro_rape was the exact opposite of anthro_raped, and it was just poorly worded so people mixed them up. I don't find myself likely to search these 2 tags, but others might find a use for them? I'm trying to figure alternative ways of searching for the same thing. If we did somehow keep anthro_rape, it should probably be split into anthro_raped and anthro_rapist. Given that rapist is not a tag, but rape is... *YEETag*

post #4075821 Has baby and shota_penetrating, already. Following the logic of this BUR, it should probably be younger_penetrating/youth_penetrating or something?
0 results for baby_penetrating -baby and 1 result for baby_penetrating -shota_penetrating and that one looks like it should be tagged. Hilariously, it has young_on_young but not child_on_child tag, even though it's very young characters.

child_dom_parent_sub only has 4 results, so making sure it has young_domination/younger_dom_older_sub tags if needed... Oh, and changed younger_dominant to young_domination as it's a single result for that tag variant. Parent should be a lore tag, as well. Hmm, the one with sleep sex tag is dom/sub situation, right? post #1124151 might not even qualify because of TWYS vs TWYK.

Tag cleanup is definitely a given and that will have to be done either way. Some of these tags can be fixed by just editing them away, and there were more that aren't in this list I did edit away, but I got frustrated with that after a while, but not only that, it doesn't prevent people from adding the tags in the future while the BUR would. Some tags are dumb and you don't need to worry about people adding them in the future like feral_feelings and feral_mind that only had one post.

post #4075821 is a mess with redundant tags. At least in the case of that image, younger_penetrating (which isn't even there) and shota is more useful than all the other penetration tags on the page (baby/shota/child). Tags that SHOULD be here aren't. The BUR would get rid of the dumb tags garbagios(and almost always only garbagios) is adding but these posts would still need to be tagged properly. The BUR wont fix THAT part either ways, except in the few cases I was able to alias to a better tag in use, nor is it the purpose of the BUR. Not having the proper and in-use tags wont be fixed by getting rid of redundant, not in use tags. People will search for the tags most widely in use. These tags here wont help anyone. Were way too late in the game to be making up new tags for things we can already find just fine. I don't have a problem with new tags when applicable. I have a problem with new tags added almost exclusively by an individual that don't actually help you find something you couldn't have found another way and are too awkwardly specific to be useful.

bloodreaver01 said:
Tag cleanup is definitely a given and that will have to be done either way. Some of these tags can be fixed by just editing them away, and there were more that aren't in this list I did edit away, but I got frustrated with that after a while, but not only that, it doesn't prevent people from adding the tags in the future while the BUR would. Some tags are dumb and you don't need to worry about people adding them in the future like feral_feelings and feral_mind that only had one post.

post #4075821 is a mess with redundant tags. At least in the case of that image, younger_penetrating (which isn't even there) and shota is more useful than all the other penetration tags on the page (baby/shota/child). Tags that SHOULD be here aren't. The BUR would get rid of the dumb tags garbagios(and almost always only garbagios) is adding but these posts would still need to be tagged properly. The BUR wont fix THAT part either ways, except in the few cases I was able to alias to a better tag in use, nor is it the purpose of the BUR. Not having the proper and in-use tags wont be fixed by getting rid of redundant, not in use tags. People will search for the tags most widely in use. These tags here wont help anyone. Were way too late in the game to be making up new tags for things we can already find just fine. I don't have a problem with new tags when applicable. I have a problem with new tags added almost exclusively by an individual that don't actually help you find something you couldn't have found another way and are too awkwardly specific to be useful.

post #4015134 is quite literal with the 'on' part of cub_on_adult. In fact, more than one of the results is like this. Yeah, yet another to clean up. Still got 48 or so to go on the female_cub nonsense.
I'll check last 2 tags on this BUR in a moment. Yeah, I agree that once they get edited out they should not be allowed to be reused.

Missing tags and let me guess: likely to be on a blacklist? Ouch, I hate that! And yeah, if I'm trying to find results using tags A/B/C, and some fool goes and makes A-ish/B-ish/C-ish, something needs to give. It's even more annoying when they're more like ABish/BCish/AishFSMLOLOMGWTFBBQ as you mention. ;) Yeah, gonna have to spend a lot of time fixing this mess.

I see where the mentioned user added male_humanoid. If this is a trend that has been going on for hundreds and hundreds of posts, FML. https://e621.net/post_versions?search%5Bpost_id%5D=3964988 Oh look. Shock, LOL. Hmm, unconscious_feral is next on chopping block?

alphamule said:
Adult/young format would be more consistent with other tags than adult_on_young. Anyone tagging adult_on_young is going to get implication to young, but not the others, yeah. This is why I mentioned that reasoning above.

child_on_adult -> post #3530621 seems to be male/male shota and older_penetrated? The other 3 results with the Pokemon characters, I'm not sure.

child_penetrat* should probably be aliased to younger_penetrat*? We really, really don't need 5 different versions of the same thing when we have tags like child, right?

https://e621.net/posts?tags=cub_dominating_cub++-cub+ No results. https://e621.net/posts?tags=cub_dominating_cub++-young_on_young 8 results. https://e621.net/posts?tags=cub_dominating_cub+-dominant+ Wayyyy too many results but if young_domination triggers an implication chain for domination, this will work fine.

https://e621.net/post_versions?search%5Bpost_id%5D=2527139 young_on_young_child What is this tag? I guess you can add that to the BUR. XD

Hmm, young_domination and dominant_young might need a further look? If the intent was to be opposite, maybe reword? If not, then cleanup then alias?

https://e621.net/posts?tags=cub_dominating_cub+-young_on_young+-child_on_child The remaining 4 look like a victim of copypasta tagging. Some don't seem to have said dominant cub in the actual image, or am I missing it?

https://e621.net/posts/2695742?q=cub_fingered Already has younger_fingered tag. This seems ready.

Went ahead and manually split the cub_male tag in both results. BTW, there's a male_cub tag that needs looking at. Hilariously a ton of these female cubs are solo with that tag. IT NEVER ENDS *laughs insanely* https://e621.net/posts?tags=female+cub+solo+female_cub <--- Cleaning these up at least. :(

Changing to adult/young to fit with the current standard for many other tags.

alphamule said:
post #4015134 is quite literal with the 'on' part of cub_on_adult. In fact, more than one of the results is like this. Yeah, yet another to clean up. Still got 48 or so to go on the female_cub nonsense.
I'll check last 2 tags on this BUR in a moment. Yeah, I agree that once they get edited out they should not be allowed to be reused.

Missing tags and let me guess: likely to be on a blacklist? Ouch, I hate that! And yeah, if I'm trying to find results using tags A/B/C, and some fool goes and makes A-ish/B-ish/C-ish, something needs to give. It's even more annoying when they're more like ABish/BCish/AishFSMLOLOMGWTFBBQ as you mention. ;) Yeah, gonna have to spend a lot of time fixing this mess.

I see where the mentioned user added male_humanoid. If this is a trend that has been going on for hundreds and hundreds of posts, FML. https://e621.net/post_versions?search%5Bpost_id%5D=3964988 Oh look. Shock, LOL.

cant blacklist younger_penetrat* if they tagged it with cub/loli/shota penetrat* instead and called it a day. If they cant tag it at all they'll look for a more applicable tag. Hopefully. This still requires users to give a shit about proper tagging and not copy/pasting tags from somewhere else.

Male_humanoid. How is this a useful tag. Same with its female counterpart

alphamule said:
I see where the mentioned user added male_humanoid. If this is a trend that has been going on for hundreds and hundreds of posts, FML.

Thats why I'm trying to alias away the offending tags with the BUR. Because its dozens of tags we don't need across thousands of images because garbagios did this unnoticed for years, going back to posts from 16 years ago or more and changing tags for god knows why. This is far beyond what I can take care of by manually editing. IMO the proper tags can be added after the BUR does away with the offending ones, but maybe theres a reason we cant do it that way? Theres too many here clean them all up. I'm more concerned with them fucking up tags on non evolved pokemon by going around and tagging them with young/child/cub even though its their canon appearance which do NOT get tagged young/child/cub because thats not how pokemon work. Can they be tagged young? Yes. If someone draws a canon vulpix its not cub just because ninetails is its evolved *adult* form, but thats what theyre doing and i cant fix that with a BUR, thats going to need manual unfuckery and being told to knock it off

bloodreaver01 said:
create alias cub_dominating_cub (102) -> young_domination (1824)

I would hold off on this one, since the remaining x_domination tags need fixing (too ambiguous if it means 'something dominating x' or 'x dominating something'), and adding more aliases to it will make it harder to fix since they'll need to be undone.

watsit said:
I would hold off on this one, since the remaining x_domination tags need fixing (too ambiguous if it means 'something dominating x' or 'x dominating something'), and adding more aliases to it will make it harder to fix since they'll need to be undone.

Removed

Hmm, as predicted, there was 4 outliers that had female_cub and missed female or cub even if it applied, or in one case where I'm not sure if it should even be tagged female in the first place (probably ambiguous_gender).
post #3003857
post #2743853
post #3403499
post #1432665 Needs to be checked. It's vore and it's hard to even tell if there's a character there.

male_cub should probably be handled in another round of aliases. I haven't even gotten to the other 5 big BURs. Finishing up on the last 3 tags here, then going on to next one in a moment. Once the cleanup is done with all the tags on this BUR, I suspect a lot of votes will get reversed to upvotes.

post #4091338 Both a cub being raped and raping. If this was the intent of the tag, then it should probably be changed to young_rapist and young_raped to be consistent with the new trend to use young* or *young as a catch-all for underage alongside a more specific tag like cub?
post #3963358 post #3828485 post #3759746 post #3633523 post #2087166 Cub is the aggressor. All of the cub_rape posts had cub tag, as did all the cub_raped. If we're getting rid of *_raped tags entirely, then the alias makes sense.

https://e621.net/posts?tags=cub_raped+-young_raped There are a ton here. Unlike the previous tag in the list, I probably don't need to deal with any possible ambiguous victim/perpetrator contexts. 161 results.

Receiving in sexual terms... ugh, this sounds like an obsolete tag we somehow missed. I am pretty sure those all got aliased to penetration tags... See also: Pitching, catching, etc. These should only be the literal definitions now ala baseball.
https://e621.net/tags?commit=Search&search%5Bhide_empty%5D=0&search%5Bname_matches%5D=receiving%2A&search%5Border%5D=count
https://e621.net/tags?commit=Search&search%5Bhide_empty%5D=0&search%5Bname_matches%5D=%2Areceiving&search%5Border%5D=count <--- Ah, here we go. Paydirt! male_receiving should go, too?

receiving_pov Notable exception. This looks legit. receiving Just looks like penetration? :/

For the cub_raped tag, I made sure that the imminent_rape and after_rape tags didn't conflict. There was a very small number that either were multiple scenes, or kind of borderline like with prodding and imminent_*. after_sex and after_rape conflict as well but I did not even want to start on that project. XD
Upvoted first 2 BURs, and moving to 3rd. This is going to be a long night. XD

Links to all 6:
1
2
3
4
5
6

See also: https://e621.net/forum_topics/38991

Checklist for cleanup:
adult_on_baby -older_* Done - Note that at least some of these might not even have adults in the scene and thus need removing. Same for a lot of the other searches listed. :(
adult_on_baby -baby Done
adult_on_baby -young* Done
adult_on_loli -older_* Done
adult_on_loli -loli Done - Note the other tagging project for shota/loli. topic #39572
adult_on_loli -young_female Done
adult_on_shota -older_* Done
adult_on_shota -shota Done - Note the other tagging project for shota/loli.
adult_on_shota -young_male Done
adult_on_toddler -older_* Done
adult_on_toddler -toddler Done
adult_on_toddler -young* Done
adult_on_teenager -older_* These will get handled with adult_on_young project.
adult_on_teenager -teenager Done - only 4 results left and teenager tag likely doesn't apply.
adult_on_teenager -young* Done - exact same 4 it likely doesn't apply.
baby_penetrated -young_penetrated Done
baby_penetrating -young_penetrating Done
child_dom_parent_subchild_dom_parent_sub -younger_dom_older_sub Done
child_on_adult -older_* Done
child_penetrated -young_penetrated Done
child_penetrating -young_penetrating Done
cub_fingered -young_fingered Done
cub_male -cub Done
cub_male -male Done
cub_on_adult -older_* Done.
cub_rape -young_rape Done
cub_rape -cub Done
cub_raped -young_raped Done
cub_raped -cub Done
cub_receiving -fellatio This tag suckkkkked. Went ahead and went through all cub_receiving results in one go. Currently DONE!!!
cub_receiving -oral_penetration Done
cub_receiving -young_penetrating Done
cub_receiving -fellatio -cunnilingus Done
cub_receiving -fellatio -cunnilingus -rimming Done
cub_receiving -fellatio -cunnilingus -rimming -after_fellatio Done

Redid this list to make sure I didn't miss any.

Example: post #3974461 didn't even have oral_penetration fellatio tags, and had to add young_penetrated as well.

post #2295530 Children don't sport 6-packs, right? That has to at least be a teenager. XD That whole muscular cub tag is trolling me. I don't even want to go near it.

alphamule said:

post #2295530 Children don't sport 6-packs, right? That has to at least be a teenager. XD That whole muscular cub tag is trolling me. I don't even want to go near it.

I mean, there is a lot of impossible musculature drawn on this site. Should these children have six packs? No. Is there anything stopping someone from drawing a baby with a six pack? Sadly, also no.

What are you looking to add to "adult_on_baby -older_*" and the like?
I've been adding
young male/female
older/younger_male/female (or whatever genders are present, gyno, herms, andro, ambiguous)
size differences if applicable
young_on_young if applicable
changing baby to child when they are clearly too large to be a baby or aren't clearly sporting baby traits and could easily pass as a five year old
other general tags that are clearly missing or shouldn't be there if I see them.

bloodreaver01 said:
I mean, there is a lot of impossible musculature drawn on this site. Should these children have six packs? No. Is there anything stopping someone from drawing a baby with a six pack? Sadly, also no.

What are you looking to add to "adult_on_baby -older_*" and the like?
I've been adding
young male/female
older/younger_male/female (or whatever genders are present, gyno, herms, andro, ambiguous)
size differences if applicable
young_on_young if applicable
changing baby to child when they are clearly too large to be a baby or aren't clearly sporting baby traits and could easily pass as a five year old
other general tags that are clearly missing or shouldn't be there if I see them.

Ugh, my personal policy right now is to just get this stuff in a consistent state. I can't even deal with judgement calls on all but the most obvious mistakes. I saw a LOT of things that I wasn't sure if it was say, cub or child or whatever, but it was obviously young. Also put in notes for myself in tagging reasons for ones that looked questionable like that. Adult_on_young and young_on_young was vastly undertagged, even if you include the adult_on_cub tags and related variants. I put those searches up just for completeness. It's a lot easier seeing if any of that applies now, than when the tags get aliased away. Once these two tagging projects are done, gonna be sooooooo taking a vacation from this. XD

More specifically, adult_on_baby older_on* has these tags that I'm pretty sure need to be looked through:

1109 ? older_on_young | history
1009 ? older_on_cub | history
159 ? older_on_child | history
87 ? older_on_loli edit | history
75 ? older_on_shota edit | history
36 ? older_on_baby edit | history
9 ? older_on_toddler edit | history

All but older_on_young are obsolete, right?
They get implicated (not in the technical sense of this word that tagging system uses) whenever you have older_on_young and cub/child/loli/shota/baby/toddler on a post. It's highly, highly unlikely that those aren't equivalent searches.

teen_baby tag...
This bring you down so many rabbit holes

bloodreaver01 said:
teen_baby tag...
This bring you down so many rabbit holes

*insert blasphemous term*, you made me remember MMMBop, and a bunch of other things.
adult_on_baby older_on_* -older_on_young Woot, only 2 results!

alphamule said:

All but older_on_young are obsolete, right?
They get implicated (not in the technical sense of this word that tagging system uses) whenever you have older_on_young and cub/child/loli/shota/baby/toddler on a post. It's highly, highly unlikely that those aren't equivalent searches.

That's my take on it. There will be VERY few examples where you wont be finding what you are looking for by using older_on_young plus another young age tag.

bloodreaver01 said:
That's my take on it. There will be VERY few examples where you wont be finding what you are looking for by using older_on_young plus another young age tag.

I'm morbidly curious what the results of these and similar searches will be:
adult_on_baby older_on_cub -cub
adult_on_baby older_on_child -child
adult_on_baby older_on_toddler -toddler
adult_on_baby older_on_shota -shota
adult_on_baby older_on_loli -loli
adult_on_baby older_on_teenage -teenager
adult_on_baby older_on_young -young
adult_on_baby older_on_baby -baby

0,5,0,0,1,0,0,0 results, respectively.

post #3895845 post #3895823 post #3895814 (versions of same image)
post #3849880
post #2708174 This one is not sure if it wants to be child, cub, etc.
post #3709326

So... added the appropriate older_male, etc. tags to those limited results for adult_on_loli -older_*, and saw post #3196739 which looks like a mess.

alphamule said:

post #2708174 This one is not sure if it wants to be child, cub, etc.

Trying to see how hardyboy draws the various age groups. From how other images are tagged it looks like baby more than toddler+, with the shorter, chubbier limbs. There are also images of theirs tagged baby but they're standing up on their own and come up to people waists. Pretty tall for a baby. A lot of times size comparison is the only indicator of whether something is a baby or toddler or whatever. Diaper and pacifier are usually decent indicators of baby but sometimes they're just WAY too big to be baby and I have no idea what they're supposed to be. Was it supposed to be a baby and they drew it too big? That baby/toddler line is pretty ambiguous. If it looks like it was supposed to be a baby, acts like a baby and not a toddler and isn't obviously too big to be a baby I'm tagging it baby. Not sure how many people care about whether its baby or toddler versus other young ages for blacklist purposes but with baby being the more extreme of the two I feel its the safer bet if its questionable.

BTW, I keep knocking out lines in forum post #372087 until they're all done. So the list should update as those all get covered. I wish I had created such lists from the beginning! It makes it soooo much clearer what's left to go through.

There are an awful lot of disembodied penises being tagged as adults for the purpose of adult_on*. Sure, they probably belong to an adult, but there isn't actually an adult in the picture. So the question is; for the purpose of tagging does a disembodied penis and JUST a disembodied penis count for adult_on*?

IMO no because its just a penis and there isn't actually an adult here, were just assuming it belongs to an adult because of the size difference and age difference when we have tags for size difference and age difference. A floating dog dick on an anthro doesn't get posts tagged as bestiality or anthro_on_feral because there isn't actually a dog there. Adult on young make sense if there is actually an adult body present in the picture to contrast with the young. Older and larger male? Sure, there is a significant size difference. But tagging just a penis as an adult seems like a stretch

Maybe its time to properly define adult_on_young.

bloodreaver01 said:
There are an awful lot of disembodied penises being tagged as adults for the purpose of adult_on*. Sure, they probably belong to an adult, but there isn't actually an adult in the picture. So the question is; for the purpose of tagging does a disembodied penis and JUST a disembodied penis count for adult_on*?

IMO no because its just a penis and there isn't actually an adult here, were just assuming it belongs to an adult because of the size difference and age difference when we have tags for size difference and age difference. A floating dog dick on an anthro doesn't get posts tagged as bestiality or anthro_on_feral because there isn't actually a dog there. Adult on young make sense if there is actually an adult body present in the picture to contrast with the young. Older and larger male? Sure, there is a significant size difference. But tagging just a penis as an adult seems like a stretch

Maybe its time to properly define adult_on_young.

We already tag disembodied penises as male, it doesn't seem that unreasonable to allow them to be tagged as adults as well because it seems like the kind of thing that people would want to blacklist or search for. And there definitely are instances where the penis is obviously meant to portray an adult_on_young scenario.

themasterpotato said:
We already tag disembodied penises as male

Because penises are inherently male genitalia, but other youngs and ferals can satisfy the the role of the male of a disembodied penis. So are we saying its an adult because the penis is a certain size larger than the young? Because of its shape? Then where do we draw that line? How big does it need to be compared to the young to be an 'adult penis'?

themasterpotato said:
it doesn't seem that unreasonable to allow them to be tagged as adults as well because it seems like the kind of thing that people would want to blacklist or search for.

If I looked up adult_on_young and I got a bunch of disembodied penises instead when I could have looked up disembodied penis and young to get exactly that I would be rather disappointed. Just based on the tag I kind of expect an ACTUAL adult to be present. Feral on feral has two ferals present. Anthro on human has an anthro and a human present. Why would adult_on_young not need two people? Someone could be interested in young on young and NOT adult on young where a floating penis, whose actual age is unknown, isn't a turn off. Youngs are drawn with every conceivable penis size as well.

themasterpotato said:
And there definitely are instances where the penis is obviously meant to portray an adult_on_young scenario.

I'm not denying that there aren't scenarios where its probably supposed to belong to an adult, but there isn't actually an adult there. And that's what I am saying. Disembodied penis should refer to disembodied penises while adult should refer to adult. We cant tag these posts with adult_male because there isn't actually an adult there.
Throw some disembodied hands in there or even part of a torso for some body size comparison and sure, I'll tag it as adult.

"Note that because of the ambiguity, disembodied penises should not be tagged as belonging to any specific species. Just tag the penis type instead, such as humanoid penis.
The same is true for form tags, such as human, anthro, or feral."

I'm sure there are plenty of scenarios where its supposed to belong to a human, anthro or feral, but they aren't actually there so it isn't tagged as such. Lets leave the ambiguous penis as ambiguous and not assign an age to it when the age is actually unknown..

bloodreaver01 said:
Because penises are inherently male genitalia, but other youngs and ferals can satisfy the the role of the male of a disembodied penis. So are we saying its an adult because the penis is a certain size larger than the young? Because of its shape? Then where do we draw that line? How big does it need to be compared to the young to be an 'adult penis'?

I think we actually assume that a penis belongs to an adult unless shown otherwise, since you're only expected to tag the age of a character when they are not an adult. Either way that would always depend mostly on the context of the whole post, not just the shape or size of the disembodied penis.

If I looked up adult_on_young and I got a bunch of disembodied penises instead when I could have looked up disembodied penis and young to get exactly that I would be rather disappointed. Just based on the tag I kind of expect an ACTUAL adult to be present. Feral on feral has two ferals present. Anthro on human has an anthro and a human present. Why would adult_on_young not need two people? Someone could be interested in young on young and NOT adult on young where a floating penis, whose actual age is unknown, isn't a turn off. Youngs are drawn with every conceivable penis size as well.

Searching adult_on_young -disembodied_penis would fix your first issue, and your argument could apply just as well to male leading to the expectation of a whole male character being present and not just a penis. As it stands now, even disembodied body parts count as characters so it's not like these images wouldn't have 2 characters anyway.

I'm not denying that there aren't scenarios where its probably supposed to belong to an adult, but there isn't actually an adult there. And that's what I am saying. Disembodied penis should refer to disembodied penises while adult should refer to adult. We cant tag these posts with adult_male because there isn't actually an adult there.
Throw some disembodied hands in there or even part of a torso for some body size comparison and sure, I'll tag it as adult.

I don't think we normally tag disembodied_hands with age or gender either. and once you add a torso it would probably not count as disembodied_penis anymore anyway.

"Note that because of the ambiguity, disembodied penises should not be tagged as belonging to any specific species. Just tag the penis type instead, such as humanoid penis.
The same is true for form tags, such as human, anthro, or feral."

That only seems to refer to species and form tags though, it doesn't mention age.

I'm sure there are plenty of scenarios where its supposed to belong to a human, anthro or feral, but they aren't actually there so it isn't tagged as such. Lets leave the ambiguous penis as ambiguous and not assign an age to it when the age is actually unknown..

I don't actually know what the correct answer to the question of whether or not a disembodied penis should ever be tagged as if it belonged to an adult, but I do think that there are posts in which it is at least pretty clearly implied and I think it's too short-sighted to just ignore those instances completely.

themasterpotato said:
Searching adult_on_young -disembodied_penis would fix your first issue, and your argument could apply just as well to male leading to the expectation of a whole male character being present and not just a penis. As it stands now, even disembodied body parts count as characters so it's not like these images wouldn't have 2 characters anyway.

That wont fix the issue, there are a lot of posts that DO have an adult body present and disembodied penises belonging to a different partner. That would remove all of those that would have otherwise satisfied the requirement of an adult body or heavily implicated adult presence present. Which is why we should be more careful with tagging adult_on_young and not slap it on every disembodied_penis.

It counts as a second character for the sake of being solo or not, but, according to the wiki, not for the sake of species_on_form or form_on_form tags since it doesn't implicate species or form. This does mean a ton of posts are tagged incorrectly if we go by the wiki definition.

themasterpotato said:
I don't think we normally tag disembodied_hands with age or gender either. and once you add a torso it would probably not count as disembodied_penis anymore anyway.

As you said, it depends on the context of the image in question.
If you have a disembodied penis and disembodied hands in the same picture they probably belong to the same entity, but not always. It will depend on how its drawn, such as if its the same color or not, or if its clearly holding them in a way that would be impossible to do on your own. But large, masculine looking hands the same color as a disembodied penis and young? Thats definitely an adult on young scenario and I've been tagging it as such. Other adult bodies around it would also heavily implicate the disembodied penis to belong to an adult. These aren't the posts I'm questioning. Just disembodied hands would get tagged older and larger ambiguous and gender_on_ambiguous if applicable, sometimes adult_on_young if the scenario suggests it.

themasterpotato said:
That only seems to refer to species and form tags though, it doesn't mention age.

Because we've never needed to distinguish it until adult_on_young started being used with frequency about 7 months ago. Before it was just a penis is a picture. Now someone is calling the penis an adult. Just because the wiki page doesn't say age doesn't mean it shouldn't. Rules and laws change over time when new things are brought into question. I'm not going to edit the wiki page to fit my own needs. But if it doesn't implicate feral, anthro, humanoid, human, canine, equine and the like, why would it implicate an age?

themasterpotato said:
I don't actually know what the correct answer to the question of whether or not a disembodied penis should ever be tagged as if it belonged to an adult, but I do think that there are posts in which it is at least pretty clearly implied and I think it's too short-sighted to just ignore those instances completely.

There are some that heavily implicate an adult presence due to position and posture that require someone of adult height. Most of them have them on something, show other body parts or other partners. These are fine and I've been tagging them as adult_on_young because I cant see the situation as anything other than adult on young. But there are too many tagged adult_on* that just show the young partner floating in some void with a penis hovering there. These seem like a stretch. I'm not saying no post with a disembodied penis should ever be tagged adult_on*, but there are a lot that it doesn't feel right. This is why I'm saying we should try to define adult_on_young better, such as it should heavily implicate an adult presence but don't just tag every floating dick as an adult just because it probably belongs to one.

themasterpotato said:
I think it's too short-sighted to just ignore those instances completely.

I think you misunderstood my intention here. I have been and will continue to tag disembodied penises with adult on young where appropriate. I've even stated here that I've been tagging posts containing disembodied penis with adult_on_young where appropriate, such as when the posts also contain disembodied hands heavily implicating an adult presence without getting an adult body in the way of the action. This is one of the clearest examples of where they didn't drawn an adult body but still implicate an adult. These aren't the ONLY scenario that im tagging as adult_on_young. I'm asking how should we define it and where the lines are drawn. There ARE posts that don't implicate an adult presence but are still tagged adult_on_* because the penis has the potential to belong to an adult but doesn't have any sort of age-play scenario going on.

bloodreaver01 said:
I think you misunderstood my intention here. I have been and will continue to tag disembodied penises with adult on young where appropriate. I've even stated here that I've been tagging posts containing disembodied penis with adult_on_young where appropriate, such as when the posts also contain disembodied hands heavily implicating an adult presence without getting an adult body in the way of the action. This is one of the clearest examples of where they didn't drawn an adult body but still implicate an adult. These aren't the ONLY scenario that im tagging as adult_on_young. I'm asking how should we define it and where the lines are drawn. There ARE posts that don't implicate an adult presence but are still tagged adult_on_* because the penis has the potential to belong to an adult but doesn't have any sort of age-play scenario going on.

My bad then, the way you worded your reply made me think you were advocating for never allowing disembodied penises to be tagged as adult_on_young.

post #2736374 Case in point. I was just making sure the adult_on* tags have older_* tags, but blindly just adding the related tag leads to questionable examples like this. Size and position kind of makes it obvious but not really?
post #2689041 I don't even think this qualifies. Hell, how do I even know that baby belongs on that post? :(

Just an update. I think I got 100% of these cleaned up, and non-redundant tags added like adult_on_baby -> baby (and not just adult_on_young as alias does). I left a link to this topic on some recent posts that used tags that are requested to be aliased away on this BUR. If we applied these 17 aliases right now, it doesn't seem like it would cause issues. Do no harm, and all that jazz.

Now to go through the other 5 posts. Then we can finally start working on WTH is going to happen with Shota/Loli tags, if anything. I mean, them being a body type is it's own sort of pain, but after the young_whatever tags are dealt with, we'll be on a stronger footing, at least.

And pretty sure done with results in https://e621.net/forum_topics/39325?page=1#forum_post_372087 , above.

Bloodreaver01, you need to read the Cub Apocalypse thread. These tags are largely obsolete. Like, you need to reject the cub ones and make new ones so people can vote on them again, or remove the cub tags from the script.

Links to all 6:
1
2
3
4
5
6

Note that 3 of these aliases already exist (italics):
alias cub_fingered -> young_fingered
alias cub_male -> young_male
alias cub_on_adult -> adult_on_young
alias cub_rape -> young_rape
alias cub_raped -> young_raped
alias cub_receiving -> young
alias feral_cub -> young_feral