The bulk update request #6050 is pending approval.

remove implication wetting (8533) -> urine (26863)

Reason: peeing does not imply urine, from the wiki: "This tag does not imply urine, because the theme can be shown without showing urine. Please be sure to use the urine tag when it is visible."

So it follows that wetting shouldn't either.

For example:

post #4513720

Here Rouge is wetting a diaper under her clothing, made clear by the outline of the diaper and an onomatopoeic *sssssssss*, but no actual urine is visible.

I have so many thoughts about this kind of things, when tagging feces on posts that are clearly soiling images, but no actual scat is visible, like, people will wanna blacklist that shit (literally), but with TWYS, its not visible

theres another reason this implication doesnt make sense. what if a character is having an orgasm and wetting themselves like in a wet_dream?

cutefox123 said:
I have so many thoughts about this kind of things, when tagging feces on posts that are clearly soiling images, but no actual scat is visible, like, people will wanna blacklist that shit (literally), but with TWYS, its not visible

Then theres a brown tint on the diaper most of the time. This is TWYS and feces can be seen through the diaper.

wolfmanfur said:
Then theres a brown tint on the diaper most of the time. This is TWYS and feces can be seen through the diaper.

"Most" is the keyword; occasionally, only an uncolored bulge is seen. At any rate, I don't really want to mess up blacklists, as Cutefox123 points out. Furthermore, such posts are going to get tagged scat anyways, which already implies feces, so we would perhaps have to remove scat -> feces as well, which would really screw up blacklists for people who only blacklist feces as an attempt to avoid all scat-related stuff.

by twys, this seems like this should be tagged something along with implied_wetting, no presence of visible wetting besides dialogue/text giving context.

👆
im with what snake girl said

snake-girl said:
by twys, this seems like this should be tagged something along with implied_wetting, no presence of visible wetting besides dialogue/text giving context.

I feel like sound effects/onomatopoeia are a different category that should/does count for TWYS.

post #2851443

for example we wouldn't tag implied fart on this image just because there's no cloud, right?