idk, I thought it'd be a good idea to have a tag to look for canonical moms or comics that have Mom characters.
A Genuine MILF tag?

Mature_Anthro & Mature_Female Is kinda on the
broad side of a "MILF"esque tag. Since it's a Mature female.
But it'd be cool to just look up "Moms" and be like "Here you go, a wide arange of Mom Posts, cause you typed Moms" (Mother tag)

I thought it'd be nice...can we?

We have mother_(lore) but i'm not sure if it's allowed to be used without her children in the image

cloudpie said:
We have mother_(lore) but i'm not sure if it's allowed to be used without her children in the image

NOOOOOOOOOO that defeats the purpouse of what I wanted!!!
So you elling me, we HAVE the tag.....BUT we can't use it unless the children are present?????
NOOOOO!!!!

I want confirmation from an Admin or Janitor, since they have a higher athority...but then again, not all of them share the same opinions.

closetpossum said:
NOOOOOOOOOO that defeats the purpouse of what I wanted!!!
So you elling me, we HAVE the tag.....BUT we can't use it unless the children are present?????
NOOOOO!!!!

I want confirmation from an Admin or Janitor, since they have a higher athority...but then again, not all of them share the same opinions.

Oh I'm just not sure. It might be fine. mother_(lore) -mother_and_child_(lore) -mother_and_father_(lore) already has 74 pages lol so I guess it has gotten a lot of use that way anyway.

cloudpie said:
Oh I'm just not sure. It might be fine. mother_(lore) -mother_and_child_(lore) -mother_and_father_(lore) already has 74 pages lol so I guess it has gotten a lot of use that way anyway.

To be fair, some of the lore tags were created to get rid of confusion when a character is depicted a certain way that isn't quite visible that TWYS can't really help with.
I feel like Lore tags are some kind of TWYK loophole....
But, if I want a definite answer then I should ask an Admin if the Mother_(lore) tag can be tagged to any post where a mother is present.

Since it'd technically be like this: There is a Mother, you know they're a Mother, you tag Mother_(lore)....it sure sounds simple to me. But I know people gotten marks just for doing that though.

Also, if it is a YES. Then wouldn't it be easier to Imply that some Moms like Nicole Watterson, Patrica Bunny, and Toriel are Mother_(lore)?

closetpossum said:
wouldn't it be easier to Imply that some Moms like Nicole Watterson, Patrica Bunny, and Toriel are Mother_(lore)?

No, there could be images of Toriel and etc. where they're drawn before they had children, like aged_down versions. Or the artist could have an AU where the character never had children. Artist's intent always trumps the copyright's canon for lore tags.

closetpossum said:
Since it'd technically be like this: There is a Mother, you know they're a Mother, you tag Mother_(lore)....it sure sounds simple to me.

I'd support this :)
It might make the son_(lore) and daughter_(lore) tags awkward though, since almost every character would theoretically have parents and we don't tag defaults. Maybe those tags are outdated honestly, if people want to see offspring with their parents (the only time someone's son or daughter status is relevant) they can search parent_and_child_(lore)

cloudpie said:
No, there could be images of Toriel and etc. where they're drawn before they had children, like aged_down versions. Or the artist could have an AU where the character never had children. Artist's intent always trumps the copyright's canon for lore tags.

So theoretically speaking. If I wanted to go on a tagging Mother_(lore) crusade, I'd have to do it manually to ensure that it belongs on posts where they are, and look, like mothers?
One thing that has me confused. I look at the mother_(lore) wiki and it clearly states that the Mother_(lore) tag NEEDS to have a child present.
Yet the mother_(lore) -mother_and_child_(lore) -mother_and_father_(lore) clearly shows that there are Mothers being shown without children.

So are the posters mistaken or should the Wiki be changed slightly?

milf is aliased to mature_female, for what it's worth.

I mean, the parent_(lore) and parent_and_child_(lore) (also the mother and father equivalents) are, as far as I can tell, totally redundant with their current definitions. I don't really see a problem with expanding the solo parent lore tags to include any character that has a child in canon.

cloudpie said:
Artist's intent always trumps the copyright's canon for lore tags.

IIRC, the only (sort of) exception to this is the incest tag. While artist intent always override canon, it's one of the only ones where I see it also being applied for copyright canon without much complaint.

Because otherwise, we would have to remove the tag from a lot of Toriel/Asriel or Bambi/Great Prince posts on the basis of "the artist didn't say anything, so don't add it."

werideatdawn said:
IIRC, the only (sort of) exception to this is the incest tag. While artist intent always override canon, it's one of the only ones where I see it also being applied for copyright canon without much complaint.

Because otherwise, we would have to remove the tag from a lot of Toriel/Asriel or Bambi/Great Prince posts on the basis of "the artist didn't say anything, so don't add it."

I more meant if the artist does say something that contradicts the canon, the artist's statement takes priority. Like if the artist says this is an AU where Toriel and Asriel are unrelated, we wouldn't tag incest right? But if the artist says nothing then we can assume incest

cloudpie said:
I more meant if the artist does say something that contradicts the canon, the artist's statement takes priority. Like if the artist says this is an AU where Toriel and Asriel are unrelated, we wouldn't tag incest right? But if the artist says nothing then we can assume incest

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Incest tends to be "tag it with source material in mind, but artist can override it if desired." Other lore tags, on the other hand, tend to be "artist intention only, regardless of source material" like the young_(lore) tag.

darryus said:
I mean, the parent_(lore) and parent_and_child_(lore) (also the mother and father equivalents) are, as far as I can tell, totally redundant with their current definitions. I don't really see a problem with expanding the solo parent lore tags to include any character that has a child in canon.

Agreed!

I think we should scrap son_(lore) daughter_(lore) and similar tags (niece, nephew, whatever) though due to the same redundancy issue, but am curious if there's any arguments for keeping them

Isn't there a way to search for tag A OR tag B or other more complex searches? ~ right? Never used it so I guess it would be time to check the cheat sheet.

darryus said:
I mean, the parent_(lore) and parent_and_child_(lore) (also the mother and father equivalents) are, as far as I can tell, totally redundant with their current definitions. I don't really see a problem with expanding the solo parent lore tags to include any character that has a child in canon.

This seems like it would fall apart when we consider any other familial tag. If we expanded the son/daughter/child lore tags to include any character that has a parent in canon in the same way, the issue is more obvious. That would include most characters (though this being fiction, there are certainly some characters that don't have a parent). The number of characters that happen to be a parent in lore is likely much higher than one may expect, and it seems rather pointless to tag on every post with a given character just because a child happened to be mentioned in some obscure post somewhere once. There's also the issue that lore tags aren't canon tags. Lore tags are for indicating artist intent with an image, which can contradict canon. For example, given someone who likes to draw a lot of Fox + Krystal art and has made fanart of them having a kid, how would tagging parent_(lore) work for their Fox/Krystal art? Or if someone disavows a popular character from having a child in their art. I can imagine this running into a lot of sharp edge cases resulting in tag wars along with mistags and missing tags.

watsit said:
This seems like it would fall apart when we consider any other familial tag. If we expanded the son/daughter/child lore tags to include any character that has a parent in canon in the same way, the issue is more obvious. That would include most characters (though this being fiction, there are certainly some characters that don't have a parent).

IMO son/daughter tags and similar ones like niece/nephew/grandchild/whatever should just be removed for this reason. Even before these tags were lore-ified, the son and daughter tags were redundant: parent_and_son should've returned identical results to just son.

watsit said:
There's also the issue that lore tags aren't canon tags. Lore tags are for indicating artist intent with an image, which can contradict canon. For example, given someone who likes to draw a lot of Fox + Krystal art and has made fanart of them having a kid, how would tagging parent_(lore) work for their Fox/Krystal art? Or if someone disavows a popular character from having a child in their art. I can imagine this running into a lot of sharp edge cases resulting in tag wars along with mistags and missing tags.

Same as any other lore tags. If the artist says they headcanon fox and krystal as being parents in their fanart, then apply the lore tag. If the artist says they headcanon a popular character as not having a child in their art, we don't add the lore tag. Someone adds a note to their tag edit or a comment on the post citing the artist's statement.

dang, this got complicated...I just want to tag Mother on moms so I can look at canon moms...

cloudpie said:
Same as any other lore tags. If the artist says they headcanon fox and krystal as being parents in their fanart, then apply the lore tag. If the artist says they headcanon a popular character as not having a child in their art, we don't add the lore tag. Someone adds a note to their tag edit or a comment on the post citing the artist's statement.

Easier said than done, given the number of times I see different people keep adding incest_(lore) to this post despite comments and tag edit reasons explaining why it doesn't apply. I could definitely imagine people continually adding mother_(lore) to any and all posts of toriel, for example, even in cases where the artist says it's an AU where Asriel doesn't exist or isn't her kid.

watsit said:
Easier said than done, given the number of times I see different people keep adding incest_(lore) to this post despite comments and tag edit reasons explaining why it doesn't apply.

I mean, I feel like the problem here might be that, if they're not related than parent_and_child_(lore) souldn't be applied. if a user sees those tags they're going to think the characters are related. giving context to a post is the reason lore tags exist. _(arguably)

we do have seperate tags for step/adoptive family relationships.

darryus said:
we do have seperate tags for step/adoptive family relationships.

Which seems messy and incomplete. adopted_son_(lore), but adoptive_mother_(lore) (adopted vs adoptive? when foster_ may be a better more consistent term). There's no mother_and_son lore tag (and many other tags) for foster family while there is for step-family. There's no wiki pages for the adopted/adoptive tags, and the normal family tags don't mention they're only for biological family (unlike incest_(lore), which does).

There's also the wrinkle that if we're tagging mother, parent, etc, based only on whether they are one in lore, does that mean a mother that has a biological kid, step kid, and adopted kid, would always be tagged mother_(lore), parent_(lore), stepmother_(lore), stepparent_(lore), and adoptive_mother_(lore) (there's no adoptive_parent_(lore)) on every post regardless of which kids, if any, are visible?

Shouldn't technical incest be a lore tag? I mean, I thought the entire point of it was that it's something you can't tell from the image.

alphamule said:
Shouldn't technical incest be a lore tag? I mean, I thought the entire point of it was that it's something you can't tell from the image.

yeah, topic #38772, there's also discussion on changing the tagname to pseudo_incest_(lore).

watsit said:
There's also the wrinkle that if we're tagging mother, parent, etc, based only on whether they are one in lore, does that mean a mother that has a biological kid, step kid, and adopted kid, would always be tagged mother_(lore), parent_(lore), stepmother_(lore), stepparent_(lore), and adoptive_mother_(lore) (there's no adoptive_parent_(lore)) on every post regardless of which kids, if any, are visible?

that's kinda what the Mother_lore wiki says...and I had the mindset that obvious parents should be tagged with parent_lore....If a user knows they're a mother, parent, step-wtf ever then would it not be possible to believe they should be taged as such?
This IS entirely LORE based after all, no?

closetpossum said:
that's kinda what the Mother_lore wiki says...and I had the mindset that obvious parents should be tagged with parent_lore....If a user knows they're a mother, parent, step-wtf ever then would it not be possible to believe they should be taged as such?
This IS entirely LORE based after all, no?

sorta: since e6 defaults to the artist's lore for genders, the issue here is whether or not this applies to the other lore tags. someone could draw Toriel from an AU where she was never a mother, do we tag this toriel with mother_(lore) or not? this wasn't an issue when mother was a TWYS tag, instead the tacked on "must be accompanied by one of their children" was for redundancy's sake, the tag would become bloated with wildly different-looking characters with the only justification for tagging them being "they're mothers", rather than "they look like mothers", which was what mature_female was for instead. enforcing a wildly tagged tag (say that five times fast) is a lot more difficult than enforcing a stricter tag, and other tags have received similar treatment (like loli, but that's another kind of argument).

furthermore, i have to ask: why did you change mother_(lore)'s wiki page, while there's a debate going on about whether the wiki should be changed?

siral_exan said:

furthermore, i have to ask: why did you change mother_(lore)'s wiki page, while there's a debate going on about whether the wiki should be changed?

I did that before I ever made this topic existed actually. I think. To give it a more broader perspective to fit the current posts under it.

closetpossum said:
I did that before I ever made this topic existed actually. I think. To give it a more broader perspective to fit the current posts under it.

you made this 6 days ago, and yet changed the wiki six days ago... you knew you were gonna start a discussion over changing the wiki, yet changed it before starting said discussion? it seems redundant to ask a question if your mind was settled anyways... or did you change it first, then had the idea that you should ask for others' opinions about it's pre-changed state?

siral_exan said:
you made this 6 days ago, and yet changed the wiki six days ago... you knew you were gonna start a discussion over changing the wiki, yet changed it before starting said discussion? it seems redundant to ask a question if your mind was settled anyways... or did you change it first, then had the idea that you should ask for others' opinions about it's pre-changed state?

The latter. I'm aware there's AUs and stuff in certain media where the artist will say that they're not a mom or they've regressed in age or never had kids, adopted, or the like. This is abundent in Undertale AUs. I personally feel it'd be simple to know wether or not they are a mother or not considering most people know of these popular canon mothers. The more obscure mothers (mother lore is my main fixation) I see would have more debate on if they are or aren't a mother. Especially if they have lore behind them or aging processes.

For example. Toriel in most AUs are mothers, while in one AU (StorySwap or something) She takes Sans' place and Asgore is her brother. But these sorts of occurrences are rare. And artists usually clarify if their own OG-Character is or isn't a mom.

Regardless, after the wiki edit, I still feel a need to know what other's think on the tag. Since a Mother, who is clearly a mother, should or shouldn't be tagged mother_(lore). My edit was to fit a more broad spectrum or if some images that legitamently only had the mother ought to be tagged with mother to add clarity.

closetpossum said:
The latter. I'm aware there's AUs and stuff in certain media where the artist will say that they're not a mom or they've regressed in age or never had kids, adopted, or the like. This is abundent in Undertale AUs. I personally feel it'd be simple to know wether or not they are a mother or not considering most people know of these popular canon mothers. The more obscure mothers (mother lore is my main fixation) I see would have more debate on if they are or aren't a mother. Especially if they have lore behind them or aging processes.

For example. Toriel in most AUs are mothers, while in one AU (StorySwap or something) She takes Sans' place and Asgore is her brother. But these sorts of occurrences are rare. And artists usually clarify if their own OG-Character is or isn't a mom.

Regardless, after the wiki edit, I still feel a need to know what other's think on the tag. Since a Mother, who is clearly a mother, should or shouldn't be tagged mother_(lore). My edit was to fit a more broad spectrum or if some images that legitamently only had the mother ought to be tagged with mother.

ok. well, i don't oppose the definition change, however changing the wiki might confuse people who want to chip in their own opinion to this discussion. since mother's no longer TWYS, tying it to also requiring a child makes it redundant compared to mother_and_child_(lore), since those both would have meant the same thing.

siral_exan said:
ok. well, i don't oppose the definition change, however changing the wiki might confuse people who want to chip in their own opinion to this discussion. since mother's no longer TWYS, tying it to also requiring a child makes it redundant compared to mother_and_child_(lore), since those both would have meant the same thing.

Actually, before I made the edit, it stated that it MUST have a child in the post. Which makes Mother_lore & Mother_and_child counter intuitive. My edit makes it so that a mother can be tagged without the child. Hence seperating the two tag and making them distinguishable. Since as you said, they would have both been the same thing really.
The whole parent (everything) lores really need some clarification and to make others not sound alike one another.

Tagging mother_(lore) on every canonical mother would cause massive tag bloat since we'd have to apply the same logic to the other familial tags. Since mother_(lore) is a lore tag now and functionally is no different from mother_and_child_(lore), I propose that mother_(lore) be allowed on posts without their children if it is explicitly stated in the image that they are a mother or that they have children. This would then also extend to the other family tags. For example, post# 2545491 explicitly mentions that Lina has a mom, making her a daughter, meaning that daughter_(lore) would be valid in this case without her parent being in the post. Of course, people would have to be careful to not get confused with things like mommy_kink

applephrans said:
Tagging mother_(lore) on every canonical mother would cause massive tag bloat since we'd have to apply the same logic to the other familial tags. Since mother_(lore) is a lore tag now and functionally is no different from mother_and_child_(lore), I propose that mother_(lore) be allowed on posts without their children if it is explicitly stated in the image that they are a mother or that they have children. This would then also extend to the other family tags. For example, post# 2545491 explicitly mentions that Lina has a mom, making her a daughter, meaning that daughter_(lore) would be valid in this case without her parent being in the post. Of course, people would have to be careful to not get confused with things like mommy_kink

as a few users said above, we should just get rid of most of detached familial relation tags, the parent and grandparent (and great grand, etc.) are the only ones that really seem like they'd be useful.

the son_(lore) and daughter_(lore) tags are pointless now since they're identical to the *_and_parent_(lore) tag and they'd be pointless if we changed the definition to essentially "has/had parent(s)", since that'd apply to just about every character on the site.

also, the mommy_kink problem already exists and has done since the site's inception.

The bulk update request #5323 is pending approval.

create alias daughter_(lore) (14304) -> parent_and_daughter_(lore) (14246) # duplicate of has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through bur
create alias son_(lore) (23315) -> parent_and_son_(lore) (21908) # duplicate of has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through bur

Reason: As discussed above, these tags are completely pointless and always have been. I have no idea why they ever existed in the first place, they simply bloat the tag list.
The meaning is identical to parent_and_daughter or parent_and_son: "A female, or intersex equivalent (gynomorph, herm) character with at least one of her parents."/"A male, or intersex equivalent (andromorph, maleherm) character with at least one of his parents."

The grandchild tags are slightly more complicated since there doesn't seem to currently be grandparent_and_grandson/grandparent_and_granddaughter tags where the grandparent is neutral and grandkid is gendered. Those could certainly still use some cleaning but it's just not as cut and dry as daughter and son. Daughter and son can be dealt with right away with no other prep needed.

Damnit, transitives, not sure what to do with those

cloudpie said:
The meaning is identical to parent_and_daughter or parent_and_son: "A female, or intersex equivalent (gynomorph, herm) character with at least one of her parents."/"A male, or intersex equivalent (andromorph, maleherm) character with at least one of his parents."

I think we need to revise that definition. As written, a gynomorph is automatically a daughter, but a gynomorph can be male, such as pb_(theycallhimcake), tristan_(bluebunboi), and shannon_(bunybunyboi).

vulpes_artifex said:
I think we need to revise that definition. As written, a gynomorph is automatically a daughter, but a gynomorph can be male, such as pb_(theycallhimcake), tristan_(bluebunboi), and shannon_(bunybunyboi).

True, i guess it should be "a female-identifying character" and "a male-identifying character"

cloudpie said:
The bulk update request #5323 is pending approval.

create alias daughter_(lore) (14304) -> parent_and_daughter_(lore) (14246) # duplicate of has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through bur
create alias son_(lore) (23315) -> parent_and_son_(lore) (21908) # duplicate of has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through bur

Reason: As discussed above, these tags are completely pointless and always have been. I have no idea why they ever existed in the first place, they simply bloat the tag list.
The meaning is identical to parent_and_daughter or parent_and_son: "A female, or intersex equivalent (gynomorph, herm) character with at least one of her parents."/"A male, or intersex equivalent (andromorph, maleherm) character with at least one of his parents."

The grandchild tags are slightly more complicated since there doesn't seem to currently be grandparent_and_grandson/grandparent_and_granddaughter tags where the grandparent is neutral and grandkid is gendered. Those could certainly still use some cleaning but it's just not as cut and dry as daughter and son. Daughter and son can be dealt with right away with no other prep needed.

What is your opinion on reversing the two aliases? since by definition daughter_(lore) should only be tagged when they are with their parent, I would say the parent_and_daughter_(lore) tag is redundant and so the tag with the fewer words would be preferred. However I'll concede it'll most likely be prone to mistags.

Though if we are going down this route, what about aliasing the tags like mother_(lore), father_(lore), son_(lore), daughter_(lore) to mother_and_child_(lore), father_and_child_(lore), parent_and_son_(lore), parent_and_daughter_(lore) respectively. Maybe brother_(lore) should go to brother_and_sibling_(lore), but the latter tag doesn't exist

Then there's uncle_(lore) and aunt_(lore) but there's no term for nephew/niece

snpthecat said:
However I'll concede it'll most likely be prone to mistags.

I prefer parent_and_daughter for this reason. It's also more descriptive

The grandchild tags are slightly more complicated since there doesn't seem to currently be grandparent_and_grandson/grandparent_and_granddaughter tags where the grandparent is neutral and grandkid is gendered. Those could certainly still use some cleaning but it's just not as cut and dry as daughter and son. Daughter and son can be dealt with right away with no other prep needed.

There aren't any grandparent_and_grandson/granddaughter tags, but I believe it's an oversight since there's grandfather_and_grandchild_(lore) and grandmother_and_grandchild_(lore), so grandfather and grandmother should get aliased to them respectively.

Also we should make this a new forum topic.

I also think that having mother_(lore) and father_(lore) be for feminine and masculine gender groups is a bit of a problem as well, since some people (both in real life and characters in posts) would perfer to use the terms with more gender-neutral definitions, with "father" being the parent who uhh... "donated" the sperm, and mother is the parent whose eggs were fertalized. personally, this is the definition I'd tend to lean tward using as the default, but as with the rest of the lore tags a character's selfID should probably trump everything else.

snpthecat said:
Though if we are going down this route, what about aliasing the tags like mother_(lore), father_(lore), son_(lore), daughter_(lore) to mother_and_child_(lore), father_and_child_(lore), parent_and_son_(lore), parent_and_daughter_(lore) respectively. Maybe brother_(lore) should go to brother_and_sibling_(lore), but the latter tag doesn't exist

I still think it would be neat to have mother_(lore) (and father and grandparents) be for characters who have children by lore even if they are unseen in a post, but if we can't do that, then yes I agree with this.

cloudpie said:
I still think it would be neat to have mother_(lore) (and father and grandparents) be for characters who have children by lore even if they are unseen in a post, but if we can't do that, then yes I agree with this.

So do you want to tag every post with Bowser in it with father?

vulpes_artifex said:
So do you want to tag every post with Bowser in it with father?

yes

vulpes_artifex said:
So do you want to tag every post with Bowser in it with father?

Yes, unless the artist's specified that the image is of Bowser before having kids, or of their childless bowser headcanon, or whatever.

Okay the real main problem I'm seeing here is confirmation. Can a Admin, Janitor, or MOD just come in and just say "Yes, parents can be taggged with their respected lore tag"
And this whole speculation debaucle would be resolved and I can go on my marry way, tagging Moms to moms, which already sounds fairly simple and a whole lotta moms need mom tagging

no? okay, so for any mom I see, I'll just tag mother lore
seems reasonable

closetpossum said:
no? okay, so for any mom I see, I'll just tag mother lore
seems reasonable

No, we haven't gotten a confirmation from an admin about changing the definition and use of mother_(lore), and it currently requires at least one of her children in the image.

snpthecat said:
No, we haven't gotten a confirmation from an admin about changing the definition and use of mother_(lore), and it currently requires at least one of her children in the image.

ehh, or we could just shift the tagging standard for the tags on our own. I'm not sure that everything needs direct admin intervention. I think the majority of the users here are in agreement that these tags have utility that's currently untapped because the old definition.

I'd say there's really not that much harm if we just try it out with the new definition, and we can then know if there's any unseen negative externalities or if the tag functions perfectly fine. we can discuss it further from there with actual data.

although it'd be important to go through the parent_(lore) -parent_and_child_(lore) search (and the same for mothers and fathers specifically) and add the proper *_and_child_(lore) tags to any posts that are currently missing them. when that's done properly, if it's decided that this change is bad, any meddling we had done could easily be undone with a purge of the parent_(lore) tags from that search.

closetpossum said:
no? okay, so for any mom I see, I'll just tag mother lore
seems reasonable

Doing things just because nobody told you "no" is a great way to cause trouble.

lafcadio said:
Doing things just because nobody told you "no" is a great way to cause trouble.

I realized that I might have used mother (lore) tag without the kids, but it was in a comic where they were in other pages. So... now I'm going to try to figure out a search to find ones I messed up on in edits history. Sigh... And I read this topic before doing it. :/ Oh, I think I remember the comic, so not too bad to fix.

lafcadio said:
Doing things just because nobody told you "no" is a great way to cause trouble.

eh, you're probably right, those lore tags wiki should be a little more "on-the-nose" and less confusing...
and maybe less "this tag is just like THAT tag, so we basically have two of the same tags"

but still, does that mean I don't add Mother tags to mothers
or do I add mother tags to mothers??? why is this so hard to get confirmation on!?
All this talk and I just wanted a simple answer...for ONE TAG

sipothac said:
ehh, or we could just shift the tagging standard for the tags on our own. I'm not sure that everything needs direct admin intervention. I think the majority of the users here are in agreement that these tags have utility that's currently untapped because the old definition.

Not everyone does agree with the tag change, as the tag(s) would become oversaturated and difficult to manage properly with the proposed definition, so I do think it's best to wait for an admin's response before changing it.

Well, in this context, the comic itself mentioned her being a mother, so it's not like I just grabbed say, Goat Mom art and just assumed all posts with her are mother, which seems to be the problem with this tag. The story behind them is the lore, but comics tend to have more explicit lore than just one-shot porn posts.

watsit said:
Not everyone does agree with the tag change, as the tag(s) would become oversaturated and difficult to manage properly with the proposed definition, so I do think it's best to wait for an admin's response before changing it.

closetpossum said:
eh, you're probably right, those lore tags wiki should be a little more "on-the-nose" and less confusing...
and maybe less "this tag is just like THAT tag, so we basically have two of the same tags"

but still, does that mean I don't add Mother tags to mothers
or do I add mother tags to mothers??? why is this so hard to get confirmation on!?
All this talk and I just wanted a simple answer...for ONE TAG

closetpossum said:
eh, you're probably right, those lore tags wiki should be a little more "on-the-nose" and less confusing...
and maybe less "this tag is just like THAT tag, so we basically have two of the same tags"

but still, does that mean I don't add Mother tags to mothers
or do I add mother tags to mothers??? why is this so hard to get confirmation on!?
All this talk and I just wanted a simple answer...for ONE TAG

The lore tag wikis literally state at the top of the page what they're used for. See mother_(lore) for example. It says

A female, or intersex equivalent (gynomorph, herm) character accompanied by at least one of her children.

So you use it when there's a mother and her child in the image.

I agree that it's redundant due to mother_and_child, and I have previously suggested that mother be aliased to mother_and_child or allow it to be used when a mother (according to artist, then if no expressed opinion either way, the canon from which the character is taken from) is present in the image, regardless of if their child is present.

However if we want to outright change the definition we must at least have the admin's approval.