The bulk update request #5362 is pending approval.

remove alias implied_vore (0) -> invalid_tag (-9)
remove alias implied_death (0) -> invalid_tag (-9)
remove alias implied_masturbation (0) -> invalid_tag (-9)
remove alias implied_digestion (0) -> invalid_tag (-9)
change category implied_vore (0) -> general
change category implied_death (0) -> general
change category implied_masturbation (0) -> general
change category implied_digestion (0) -> general

Reason: After some discussion, there is a general consensus for implied tags to be unaliased from invalid_tag because their usefulness far outweights any concern some folks may have about them.
https://e621.net/forum_topics/39807
https://e621.net/forum_topics/39735
https://e621.net/forum_topics/38340

I can't speak for the tags which I've never been in a situation where I wished I could use them, but for implied_vore, there are at least 2 posts that would use the tag.

post #2401224 It should not be tagged "vore" because there is no evidence of vore apart from text which isn't aligned with the twys policy. As somebody else pointed out, it is implied, but that's the extent of it.Vore in general needs a clarification because it gets added all the time to posts that aren't vore.

post #3987466 I did try to tag it vore before because a folk was mad at this image for implying it, but when I tried "implied_vore" it autocorrected to invalid_tag, so I used another 'less correct' tag. Funniest part is they got a warning for a tag they could not blacklist because it was not on the fucking post! Courtesy of furrypickle: https://e621.net/user_feedbacks?search%5Buser_id%5D=1122399 and courtesy of Knotty Curls: https://e621.net/posts/3987466#comment-7288612

Implied_death would work on that post too.

If it isn't good enough for a general tag, it can always be realiased into lore suffix tags, but note there are already many implied_* tags that are valid, and they've got over 1000 posts, I don't think its necessary: https://e621.net/tags?commit=Search&search%5Bhide_empty%5D=0&search%5Bname_matches%5D=implied_%2A&search%5Border%5D=count

what would the definitions of these tags even be? because the two examples you gave are wildly different situations, one is "vore, but you can't really see it very well" and the other is "this character has skulls in her room so we can assume that she's vored some people in the past, I guess". tags are for the here and now.

the first image is just accidental_vore and the second one is _maybe_ imminent_vore because of her licking her lips.

the implied_* tags are always going to be less precise, and less accurate than some other tags.

Yeah, that second one I wouldn't classify as vore. Skulls doesn't equal vore, she could be a serial murderer or maybe they're decorative, there's no saying where they came from. The lip licking seems to be indicating a sexual appetite, rather than an intent to vore. There's nothing there to indicate vore or imminent vore, IMO.

Most implied_* tags have the issue that you either can't see it (thus isn't TWYS), or there's enough indication to tag the actual thing, no need for the implied_ bit.

darryus said:
what would the definitions of these tags even be? because the two examples you gave are wildly different situations, one is "vore, but you can't really see it very well" and the other is "this character has skulls in her room so we can assume that she's vored some people in the past, I guess". tags are for the here and now.

the first image is just accidental_vore and the second one is _maybe_ imminent_vore because of her licking her lips.

the implied_* tags are always going to be less precise, and less accurate than some other tags.

The first image, as said here, could be understood as crush. Text in itself is not TWYS, and there is nothing on that picture that hints it's vore, again other than the text which implies it. So, either vore_(lore) ore implied_vore would apply, but not vore.

I highly suggest you read the comment section under the second image. Having a way to blacklist vore that is implied by the scenario or otherwise within lore would prevent the drama that happened down there.

watsit said:
Yeah, that second one I wouldn't classify as vore. Skulls doesn't equal vore, she could be a serial murderer or maybe they're decorative, there's no saying where they came from. The lip licking seems to be indicating a sexual appetite, rather than an intent to vore. There's nothing there to indicate vore or imminent vore, IMO.

Most implied_* tags have the issue that you either can't see it (thus isn't TWYS), or there's enough indication to tag the actual thing, no need for the implied_ bit.

Read the description and the comment section. This is what lore tags have been used for.

And my solution to that is to realias them to *_(lore) suffixed tags, but given the amount of implied tags that have been fine (ie: implied_transformation with 2k posts) it's not the priority right now.

wolfmanfur said:
Read the description and the comment section. This is what lore tags have been used for.

The description doesn't indicate vore either, just sitting on and maybe smothering another ("vanilla loveeessss to have a friend under her ass [...] warning: big buts may cause death by smothering"). There's no vore or implied vore there.

watsit said:
The description doesn't indicate vore either, just sitting on and maybe smothering another ("vanilla loveeessss to have a friend under her ass [...] warning: big buts may cause death by smothering"). There's no vore or even implied vore.

The artist confirms the skulls are supposed to be people she ate. The comments have not changed since last time I've checked.

wolfmanfur said:
The first image, as said here, could be understood as crush. Text in itself is not TWYS, and there is nothing on that picture that hints it's vore, again other than the text which implies it. So, either vore_(lore) ore implied_vore would apply, but not vore.

I wasn't even reading the text. if it was crush the smaller character would still be visible, otherwise there's really only one place to have ended up.

wolfmanfur said:
The artist confirms the skulls are supposed to be people she ate. The comments have not changed since last time I've checked.

still not any form of vore or implied_<anyting> since it's not happening _in_ the post. we don't tag stuff that has happened in the past, even by lore.

The first Image is a really poor example cus there's no way the bottom character completely disappears unless it's vore. The size-dif just isn't big enough.
I made the referenced post about implied_digestion so I'm fully on board with re-instating implied tags but seriously, use your eyes.

The second post could be potentially covered with "Post_digestion" which is tag I use a lot. But honestly nothing about that image really says vore or digestion to me at all. It just looks like some face sitting in a goth-chick's bedroom. Skull_trophy is I think the most reasonable way to tag what that one's getting at. Not an existing tag but it is something I've seen in images like it before and I think it has enough merit to be a tag distinct from just "skull".

Neither are really great examples of where an implied tag would be relevant. Most of the time I want to use implied tags it's when dialogue in the image suggests it's happening, states it "will" happen, or something is in the image that's commonly used as a indicator that it happened but not outright confirmation. These are instances where definitive tags don't quite work.

vore_(lore) when

I have the exact issue right now with a post I made. The vore tag got removed from a vore pov art, so it got seen by people not into the kink and got downvoted to hell and retagged as "nightmare_fuel" and "cursed_image". How do you tag a vore pov art when the vore isn't happening in the shot but about to happen? I have to use the vore tag because my art is a vore art, it's completely implied that you're about to be eaten and the details of the maw show that. I cannot use implied_vore since it's invalid, but I can't leave it without the vore tag since it's obviously enough a vore pov art with an adequate vore description and lore, not only some sort of mawshot. Without the vore tag, people who blacklisted vore will land on it and will be put uncomfortable.

sipothac said:
I wasn't even reading the text. if it was crush the smaller character would still be visible, otherwise there's really only one place to have ended up.

still not any form of vore or implied_<anyting> since it's not happening _in_ the post. we don't tag stuff that has happened in the past, even by lore.

Crush can be added to posts if the character getting crushed stops being visible. Vore can't, though.

See after_vore, why do folks keep insisting a post can't have something if it is in the past? There is the after_* series of tags.

faucet said:
vore_(lore) when

When this BUR gets approved, so I can realias them to their *_lore counterparts. Well, if it is that big of a deal anyway.

armaleos said:
How do you tag a vore pov art when the vore isn't happening in the shot but about to happen?

You don't tag what isn't happening. At best there's imminent_vore for when a visible character is about to be eaten (and to note, a mouth shot doesn't count as a character POV; some part of the character has to be visible for _pov tags or any tag for the character to apply).

armaleos said:
I have to use the vore tag because my art is a vore art, it's completely implied that you're about to be eaten and the details of the maw show that.

The viewer doesn't count as a character if parts of the character aren't visible. An open mouth facing the viewer is mouth_shot, it's not considered vore for tagging purposes since you can't see a character being eaten.

wolfmanfur said:
See after_vore, why do folks keep insisting a post can't have something if it is in the past? There is the after_* series of tags.

That's for the immediate aftereffects of the act being visible, not a general 'this thing happened some time ago' tag (like how pregnancy doesn't imply after_sex, but rather when there's fresh cum leaking out).

armaleos said:
I have the exact issue right now with a post I made. The vore tag got removed from a vore pov art, so it got seen by people not into the kink and got downvoted to hell and retagged as "nightmare_fuel" and "cursed_image". How do you tag a vore pov art when the vore isn't happening in the shot but about to happen? I have to use the vore tag because my art is a vore art, it's completely implied that you're about to be eaten and the details of the maw show that. I cannot use implied_vore since it's invalid, but I can't leave it without the vore tag since it's obviously enough a vore pov art with an adequate vore description and lore, not only some sort of mawshot. Without the vore tag, people who blacklisted vore will land on it and will be put uncomfortable.

Ah yes, a classic example of an alarmingly detailed mawshot. Actually, that whole thread is relevant to the discussion here.

I note that the other example I gave back then, transformation, already has a very popular implied_transformation tag.

wolfmanfur said:
See after_vore, why do folks keep insisting a post can't have something if it is in the past? There is the after_* series of tags.

the after_* tags are for the immediate aftermath of a situation, when the results of the act are still clearly visible. you wouldn't tag after_sex on every pregnant character or a character with a child, would you?

I think that at least a few of these could be moved to invalid category, at least. I think there's situations where this could be added where a better more specific tag could be added, or at least their standard form of the tag.

Would implied_masturbation be any different than the already existing obscured_masturbation tag?
--------------
EDIT: After commenting this, I started tagging obscured_masturbation on some posts since it's under-tagged, but I realized it's probably not a good idea to make major changes a tag that's actively under discussion, so I'm just adding them to a set now. set #50848

EDIT from 9 days in the future: I added the tag to the posts and deleted the set.

crocogator said:
Would implied_masturbation be any different than the already existing obscured_masturbation tag?

Ah now I get what Sipothac was saying earlier. I reckon implied_sex has that same problem where it's redundant with obscured_sex. This tag should be re-aliased to obscured_masturbation, it would be better than invalid_tag of all things.