Topic: Tag implication: vaginal_prodding -> prodding

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

tjacky said:
The tag implication #60077 vaginal_prodding -> prodding is pending approval.

Reason: obviously

Not as obvious as you think it is, and even if it were, you should still state the reasoning.

vaginal prodding and anal prodding would cover the entirety of the prodding tag, and they could be useful for specifying which kind is occurring, but I wonder how these two tags would be meaningfully different (when tagged correctly) from vaginal + prodding and anal + prodding in a search. If they aren't, should both these sub tags be aliased to prodding

For their other prodding BUR, see topic #43261

from the wiki of prodding says "not far enough to be considered vaginal_penetration or anal_penetration.", so normally the image tagged prodding shouldn't be tagged vaginal nor anal, there for vaginal + prodding and anal + prodding would show much less result.
And since there are many image be tagged only one of prodding or vaginal_prodding, I think an implication is necessary.

snpthecat said:
Not as obvious as you think it is, and even if it were, you should still state the reasoning.

vaginal prodding and anal prodding would cover the entirety of the prodding tag, and they could be useful for specifying which kind is occurring, but I wonder how these two tags would be meaningfully different (when tagged correctly) from vaginal + prodding and anal + prodding in a search. If they aren't, should both these sub tags be aliased to prodding

For their other prodding BUR, see topic #43261

  • 1