The bulk update request #5643 is pending approval.

mass update recursive_vore -> nested_vore
create implication recursive_vore (258) -> nested_vore (0)

Reason:

nested vore: n-2 in n-1 in n

recursive vore: n-2 in n-1 in n in n-2

the whole point of recursion is that a set contains itself.

recursive vore is one of my favorite things to see on here, but the current tagging system makes it hard to find. you may think this is a bit pedantic (and you're kind of right) but i feel like the separation would be helpful. i can even go through and re-tag all the actually recursive vore posts myself if needed

Recursion in standard use is allowed to end. Infinite recursion is a subcase.
I could see creating another tag for that, if there are any images that would actually qualify.

scth said:
Recursion in standard use is allowed to end. Infinite recursion is a subcase.
I could see creating another tag for that, if there are any images that would actually qualify.

there are, actually! post #3190639 and post #4135301 are the first 2 that come to mind

Now that I've thought about it a bit more, I do agree with the mass update recursive_vore -> nested_vore (or perhaps alias instead). That's just a better name with the current definition.
Your definition of recursive_vore, though, feels a bit too specific for me; I'm surprised it's happened at all, let alone twice.

How about expanding the definition of the recursion tag a bit, allowing for anything containing itself? That would let this be found with recursion vore. If there are enough uses of the tag, specific subcases like this could be split out, but I don't think that that is currently the case. There are already uses of it in line with that definition, such as post #451656; the image doesn't contain itself, making the recursion tag not fit with the current definition, but I'd say it should count.

scth said:
Now that I've thought about it a bit more, I do agree with the mass update recursive_vore -> nested_vore (or perhaps alias instead). That's just a better name with the current definition.
Your definition of recursive_vore, though, feels a bit too specific for me; I'm surprised it's happened at all, let alone twice.

How about expanding the definition of the recursion tag a bit, allowing for anything containing itself? That would let this be found with recursion vore. If there are enough uses of the tag, specific subcases like this could be split out, but I don't think that that is currently the case. There are already uses of it in line with that definition, such as post #451656; the image doesn't contain itself, making the recursion tag not fit with the current definition, but I'd say it should count.

yeah! that makes a lot of sense here.