The bulk update request #5663 has been rejected.

create implication faux_gaping_anus (30) -> faux_gaping (1089)
create implication faux_gaping_cervix (0) -> faux_gaping (1089)
create implication faux_gaping_cloaca (0) -> faux_gaping (1089)
create implication faux_gaping_mouth (0) -> faux_gaping (1089)
create implication faux_gaping_navel (0) -> faux_gaping (1089)
create implication faux_gaping_nipple (93) -> faux_gaping (1089)
create implication faux_gaping_nostril (0) -> faux_gaping (1089)
create implication faux_gaping_pouch (0) -> faux_gaping (1089)
create implication faux_gaping_prolapse (0) -> faux_gaping (1089)
create implication faux_gaping_pussy (260) -> faux_gaping (1089)
create implication faux_gaping_sheath (0) -> faux_gaping (1089)
create implication faux_gaping_slit (0) -> faux_gaping (1089)
create implication faux_gaping_urethra (1) -> faux_gaping (1089)
create implication hyper_faux_gape (0) -> faux_gaping (1089)

Reason: These are all more specific types of faux_gaping.

EDIT: The bulk update request #5663 (forum #378972) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

"Faux gaping" is a really bad name, since it *is* gaping (and the gaping wiki should be updated to include use of fingers or whatever). The tag should be renamed, and it will be more difficult and time-consuming to rename it if there are implications associated with it (since they'll need to be removed before "faux_gaping" can be aliased to a more appropriate name).

It also may be that these more specific tags are unnecessary, since you could use gaping_x with whatever "faux gaping" is renamed to.

(Also, please don't hide threads. It had relevant discussion that can't be seen now.)

I really don't like these tagnames... also, I feel like somehow this tag family might be simultaneously too specific and too broad. like, I'm not sure if we need an individual tag for each possible orifice, and at the same time I'm not sure if it makes sense to combine all of these fairly disparate concepts (spreading agape, invisible penetration, orifice held open semi-permanently by piercings or inserted rings, etc.) into a single tag.

ohp, now the account's just deleted, okay...
create account, make nearly 20000 edits over 4 years, get pushback on one tag suggestion, delete entire account. that seems like a reasonable series of events.

user_386154 said:
The bulk update request #5663 has been rejected.

create implication faux_gaping_anus (30) -> faux_gaping (1089)
create implication faux_gaping_cervix (0) -> faux_gaping (1089)
create implication faux_gaping_cloaca (0) -> faux_gaping (1089)
create implication faux_gaping_mouth (0) -> faux_gaping (1089)
create implication faux_gaping_navel (0) -> faux_gaping (1089)
create implication faux_gaping_nipple (93) -> faux_gaping (1089)
create implication faux_gaping_nostril (0) -> faux_gaping (1089)
create implication faux_gaping_pouch (0) -> faux_gaping (1089)
create implication faux_gaping_prolapse (0) -> faux_gaping (1089)
create implication faux_gaping_pussy (260) -> faux_gaping (1089)
create implication faux_gaping_sheath (0) -> faux_gaping (1089)
create implication faux_gaping_slit (0) -> faux_gaping (1089)
create implication faux_gaping_urethra (1) -> faux_gaping (1089)
create implication hyper_faux_gape (0) -> faux_gaping (1089)

Reason: These are all more specific types of faux_gaping.

All of these describe spreading, these tags are almost entirely redundant and the tag name doesn't make sense.

I don't think these can even be aliased unfortunately since it's basically a search for ~spreading ~transparent_sex_toy. I guess they should be nuked?

The bulk update request #5663 (forum #378972) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

topic #40778 related

I believe that the full list of constituent valid tags that make faux_gaping up is translucent_penis, transparent_dildo, spreading, or spreader_toy. so once the posts with this tag have at least one of these four tags we should be good to nuke without losing any potential value.