Currently, big_top_small_bottom is aliased to big_dom_small_sub but the two are not actually the same. For example, you can have a smaller powerbottom. See this picture (https://e621.net/posts/4615574) for an example of which big_top_small_bottom applies, but big_dom_small_sub does not (and note how small_dom_big_sub is used instead). For this reason, big_top_small_bottom should be unaliased from big_dom_small_sub.

As precedent, we can use the same reasoning as given on the page small_top_big_bottom
Also brought up by this user 3 months ago https://e621.net/forum_posts/393091.

If approved, people are currently using small_bottom_large_top for this purpose anyways, so that could be aliased to big_top_small_bottom.

torp0r said:

As precedent, we can use the same reasoning as given on the page small_top_big_bottom (https://e621.net/wiki_pages/29691)

Wiki page link failed because of how DText handles link recognition. You can put square brackets around the tag name (like this [[tag_name]]) to link to its wiki. You can learn more about DText here

Also brought up by this user 3 months ago https://e621.net/forum_posts/393091.

Hmm, they have a point

snpthecat said:
Wiki page link failed because of how DText handles link recognition. You can put square brackets around the tag name (like this [[tag_name]]) to link to its wiki.
Hmm, they have a point

Thank you for the advice! I'll have to check out DText if I post some more.

The bulk update request #8447 is pending approval.

remove alias big_top_small_bottom (0) -> big_dom_small_sub (41795)

Reason: Taking an entry from BUR #1502 from topic #31197 to be approved and voted on separately.

Edited Followup:

alias big_top_small_bottom -> smaller_penetrated
alias small_bottom_large_top -> smaller_penetrated
alias small_bottom_big_top -> smaller_penetrated
alias big_bottom_small_top -> larger_penetrated
alias small_top_big_bottom -> larger_penetrated

snpthecat said:
Followup:

alias small_bottom_large_top -> big_top_small_bottom
alias small_bottom_big_top -> big_top_small_bottom
alias big_bottom_small_top -> small_top_big_bottom

Not sure about this. How are we defining "top" and "bottom" here? Physical placement, or in terms of who's penetrating who? We have smaller_penetrated (implicitly larger penetrating) and larger_penetrated (implicitly smaller penetrating) already for the size of penetrating/penetrated characters, which would suggest these are physical placement rather than penetration, but the wiki has examples of the opposite (small_top_big_bottom has an example where the smaller character is on the bottom and the bigger character on top).

watsit said:
Not sure about this. How are we defining "top" and "bottom" here? Physical placement, or in terms of who's penetrating who? We have smaller_penetrated (implicitly larger penetrating) and larger_penetrated (implicitly smaller penetrating) already for the size of penetrating/penetrated characters, which would suggest these are physical placement rather than penetration, but the wiki has examples of the opposite (small_top_big_bottom has an example where the smaller character is on the bottom and the bigger character on top).

probably should alias to smaller_penetrated and larger_penetrated, unless the mistag rate is high enough to warrant invalidation.

In my opinion, "top" and "bottom" are nonsense terms. A character physically below can be "top"ing another if they are penetrating, therefore it is vastly more accurate to refer to this as penetration. Top/bottom is commonly confused between 3 things: penetration/penetrated, dominant/submissive, and above/below. Anyway, as Watsit said, smaller_penetrated and larger_penetrated are much better.

aaronfranke said:
In my opinion, "top" and "bottom" are nonsense terms. A character physically below can be "top"ing another if they are penetrating, therefore it is vastly more accurate to refer to this as penetration. Top/bottom is commonly confused between 3 things: penetration/penetrated, dominant/submissive, and above/below. Anyway, as Watsit said, smaller_penetrated and larger_penetrated are much better.

I mean, it's definitely not dom/sub, though. so the above BUR is still valid.

watsit said:

Not sure about this. How are we defining "top" and "bottom" here? Physical placement, or in terms of who's penetrating who? We have smaller_penetrated (implicitly larger penetrating) and larger_penetrated (implicitly smaller penetrating) already for the size of penetrating/penetrated characters, which would suggest these are physical placement rather than penetration, but the wiki has examples of the opposite (small_top_big_bottom has an example where the smaller character is on the bottom and the bigger character on top).

Oh yeah, there's that problem. The convention is that on_top/bottom refers to relative position, while _top/bottom refers to penetration

But of course it's still not very well named.

Not against this, but voting meh because this doesn't seem worth the effort. This has been tagged six times in the history of the site, and three of those were on the dupes of same post.

Not to mention that the followup wouldn't work for half of those. The three most recent posts where this had been tagged were variants of post #1992059.

genjar said:
Not against this, but voting meh because this doesn't seem worth the effort. This has been tagged six times in the history of the site, and three of those were on the dupes of same post.

Not to mention that the followup wouldn't work for half of those. The three most recent posts where this had been tagged were variants of post #1992059.

Eh it's not been in use because there's smaller_penetrated and the fact it's been aliased quite a while ago, which on reflection should probably be where the aliases should point to

There have been efforts to circumvent it, such as creating small_bottom_large_top, that I think it should probably be rectified