The bulk update request #8617 is active.

Reason: Fixing a lot of issues with the current diaper tags, explanations are below:
- Setting up "unclean diaper" for when a diaper has anything in it, at all, as an opposite to "clean." This term is being chosen as something that's incredibly clear, since almost all other terms (messy, used, soiled, filled, etc.) can be easily misinterpreted.
- - Hence, moving "used diaper" underneath to imply specifically bodily use (as in, as an intended function of use, i.e. bathroom, so not cum), with "wet_diaper" and "soiled_diaper" underneath as the two main types.
- - Otherwise, other forms of unclean diapers can imply directly to "unclean diaper," such as "waterlogged..." (filled with water), "cum_in_diaper" (filled with cum), etc. This is helpful as there's certainly some who like diapers, and maybe like stuff inside, but not bathroom-related fluids and solids.
- Aliasing "messy diaper"/"dirty diaper" to "soiled diaper", and related terms. "Soiled" is just the most clear terminology, "messy" is frequently used in the ABDL community for #2 but it conflicts heavily with our use of the word "messy" as a tag, so it's best to avoid it as the lead tag. That being said, it IS common enough that I think it's fine to alias it, since 99% of people will mean soiled. But it's just more obvious exactly what the tag means when "soiled" is the word at the forefront.
- - (As a note, it'd be nice if we had a good term for that with "wet diaper" since that's also vague, but I couldn't think of one. Maybe an alias for another day).
- Aliasing "full diaper" to "unclean diaper"-this is the only one which I could see pushback on, since it could be seen as just "soiled" by the community, but the term is so vague and the current description seems to suggest it could be any kind of "filling," so I think just saying it's the same as unclean makes sense.
- Aliasing "diaper_fur" and "diaperfurry" to invalid. I thought about aliasing them to "diaper" but it just doesn't make sense since some images don't even have diapers. I also thought about aliasing it to "infantilism" but then we have the reverse problem, since some images have furries in diapers but otherwise not related to the "AB" part of ABDL. These just aren't great terms for the database, so let's get rid of them. Removed per later discussion, this is a separate can of worms.

I'll be submitting a second request to complete this request, with requirements below:
- alias dirty_diaper -> soiled_diaper (need this p1 approved)
- alias messy_diaper -> soiled_diaper (need this p1 approved)
- alias full_diaper -> unclean_diaper (need alias #63559 rejected, per reasoning above)

EDIT: The bulk update request #8617 (forum #408851) has been approved by @scaliespe.

looks better and more concise than what i had in topic #33352

diaperfurry -diaper returns 0 results, and diaper_fur -diaper returns just one, post #13365 - it's difficult to tell, but it looks like that may be a case of diaper_transformation? Neither tag has been removed from any posts recently, and I can't see anything that looks obviously wrong on the front pages of both tags either. I think the obvious alias is more than justified.

I am also not sure what your justification is for keeping soggy_diaper and wet_diaper separate, although it looks like soggy_diaper -wet_diaper does need a bit of cleanup.

wat8548 said:
diaperfurry -diaper returns 0 results, and diaper_fur -diaper returns just one, post #13365 - it's difficult to tell, but it looks like that may be a case of diaper_transformation? Neither tag has been removed from any posts recently, and I can't see anything that looks obviously wrong on the front pages of both tags either. I think the obvious alias is more than justified.

I am also not sure what your justification is for keeping soggy_diaper and wet_diaper separate, although it looks like soggy_diaper -wet_diaper does need a bit of cleanup.

For the former, I suppose it's arguable we could alias diaper_fur/diaperfurry to diaper instead, but it's sort of just a useless tag and term? I don't think it matters either way. I think making it invalid just helps with any weird edge cases. That being said, I wouldn't particularly mind aliasing it to diaper if that's what people think is the best option. We do alias "fatfur" to "overweight," though in that case "fatfur" describes a body-type which is easier to alias, while "diaper fur" is more of a... kink? Vibe? Lifestyle? It depends on context, which is why I thought just removing it altogether was best. It's just something where any use case of the tag is better described using something else, and it's hard to imagine someone using a tag like that without also tagging "diaper" as well (unless they're just not a good tagger in general).

For the latter issue, I'm currently keeping both soggy diaper and sagging diaper since they seem to describe times when a wet/soiled diaper is more wet/soiled than average, to a notable extent. It's possible they're not being used accurately currently, but both have listed definitions that at least make some sort of sense. I didn't feel like trying to alias them away was necessary for this BUR, since it'd just be a point of contention among those who consider "soggy" to be different from just "wet."

At the end of the day I consider this two-part BUR request to be more of a starting point. The way the tags are handled currently has a lot of weird implications, aliased, and tags which mean the same thing. I'm hoping the restructuring above can provide a more sensical foundation for future, more niche changes.

meowmcmeow said:
For the latter issue, I'm currently keeping both soggy diaper and sagging diaper since they seem to describe times when a wet/soiled diaper is more wet/soiled than average, to a notable extent. It's possible they're not being used accurately currently, but both have listed definitions that at least make some sort of sense. I didn't feel like trying to alias them away was necessary for this BUR, since it'd just be a point of contention among those who consider "soggy" to be different from just "wet."

The soggy_diaper wiki page makes no sense, contradicts most actual usage, and was written by a random user two years ago. And even if you did take it at face value, that would just make sagging_diaper the correct alias target instead.

meowmcmeow said:
At the end of the day I consider this two-part BUR request to be more of a starting point. The way the tags are handled currently has a lot of weird implications, aliased, and tags which mean the same thing. I'm hoping the restructuring above can provide a more sensical foundation for future, more niche changes.

I'm rather worried that, if we don't get it right the first time, these changes will be locked in due to the general reluctance of staff to handle diaper change (sorry) requests. The soiled_diaper -> messy_diaper implication has persisted for years now, despite universal consensus and longstanding requests for them to be aliased instead.

wat8548 said:
The soggy_diaper wiki page makes no sense, contradicts most actual usage, and was written by a random user two years ago. And even if you did take it at face value, that would just make sagging_diaper the correct alias target instead.

Hmmm you are right about that... I didn't even notice they had the same description.
Perhaps it would be better to do the following:
alias soggy_diaper -> wet_diaper
Since all it really describes by name is that the diaper was urinated in. Then:
implicate sagging_diaper -> unclean_diaper
Since "sagging" is a clear term for a diaper that's obviously been filled up to a more notable extent than just being stained, but it's not clear by definition what is causing it to sag.

That way we have the former vague tag alias to what it's obviously being used for, while the latter can be used as "heavily used/filled diapers," which is a needed tag.

How does that sound? It makes sense to me.

meowmcmeow said:
Hmmm you are right about that... I didn't even notice they had the same description.

I'd like to say I noticed the wiki pages were word-for-word identical (until you edited one of them), but I was just going off the "soggy" definition. That certainly didn't hurt my case, though!

meowmcmeow said:
How does that sound? It makes sense to me.

That sounds like the correct course of action. I cleaned up the soggy_diaper -wet_diaper results (22 posts, of which 8 just should have been tagged wet_diaper instead). Along the way I encountered the intriguing edge case of pussy_juice_in_diaper, which has barely any posts but I suppose would be another candidate for the unclean_diaper implication. I also only just noticed your BUR still has a proposal to alias soaked_diaper to soggy_diaper.

Updated based on above conversation.
That being said, these will have to be denied to push it through:
implication #56474
implication #56473
Otherwise, I don't think I can alias away "soggy diaper" to "wet diaper". It's basically "sagging but wet," but it's rather unspecific, easy to misconstrue, and easily replaced by a user using "sagging_diaper" + (any sort of unclean diaper tag).

I still think it is important to alias the invalid tags to something other than invalid_tag.

• They have over 300 posts each and have a pattern of being consistently added to posts by multiple users over years.
• The alias target I proposed has a 100% accuracy rate.
• We should try to minimise aliases with no valid targets wherever possible as a general principle, as well as to reduce the amount of manual work required later.
• Just look at the existing precedents:
• anthrofur -> anthro
• femalefur -> female
• malefur -> male
• kidfur -> young
• littlefur -> young
• fatfur -> overweight
• transfur -> transformation _{Though admittedly this one might need to be rethought}
• chibifur -> chibi
• By contrast, there have been a total of 4 aliases of "*fur" tags to invalid tags, of which 3 have since been deleted.
• The practice of tagging furry art featuring a specific fetish as "[fetish]fur" is long established practice on other sites with inferior tagging systems, most notably Twitter and FA.
• An FA search for "diaperfur" returns over 47k results. Every single picture on the front page features at least one diaper.

Oddly, one of the few exceptions to the above alias pattern is diaperfur (no underscore) -> infantilism. This seems notably dodgy to me. All available data suggests that the images users try to use that tag on consistently feature diapers, but explicit or implicit baby-play does not seem to need to be present at all. The alias was created 10 years ago by an admin with little discussion. I would also like to see diaperfur and diaperfurs re-targeted to diaper.

I'm making the decision to remove the diaperfur-related aliases from the request right now. It seems that most related tags (babyfur, abdl, diaperfur) are aliased to infantilism, and it sounds like a separate can of worms to try and figure out the differences and nuances with those terms. I'd rather those be handled in a different request, since I initially just added those aliases as a secondary concern since I falsely assumed they'd be a simple "invalid tag" alias. For now, lets move ahead with this BUR only being focused on the diaper hierarchy and not on terms like infantilism, abdl, diaperfur, babyfur, etc.

The bulk update request #8617 (forum #408851) has been approved by @scaliespe.

The bulk update request #8718 has been rejected.

remove alias diaperfur (0) -> infantilism (4918)
remove alias diaperfurs (0) -> infantilism (4918)

Reason: As per the discussion above, these tags and their derivatives are consistently used for pictures of characters wearing diapers, which is not the same thing and does not imply characters acting younger than their age. These aliases have likely caused a number of mistags.

I opted not to include the plural forms, as diaper_furs has never been used and diaperfurs has only been used by one troll 12 years ago, predating even the current alias by 2 years.

EDIT: The bulk update request #8718 (forum #409828) has failed: Alias for diaperfur not found

EDIT: The bulk update request #8718 (forum #409828) has been rejected by @scaliespe.

There's a competing BUR over at topic #44693 that's planning to do the opposite
and there's also topic #33416 doing the exact same thing, but with the votes reversed
And then there's also topic #32031 which is a wider version of your BUR

The bulk update request #8719 is pending approval.

create alias dirty_diaper (0) -> soiled_diaper (2748)
create alias full_diaper (648) -> unclean_diaper (8006)

Reason: followup
and approve alias #63308

And should cum_on_diaper imply unclean diaper?

The following topics should all be rejected:

topic #33263 (soiled_diaper -> messy diaper): directly conflicts with the agreed proposals in this thread
topic #33416 (diaper[_]fur[ry]/diaper_lover -> infantilism): for reasons detailed both above and in that thread
topic #44693 (diaperfurry/diaper_fur -> infantilism): for the same reason again
topic #32031 (unalias diaperfur[s]/ab[/]dl): unlike the diaper* tags, "abdl" does directly mention the "ab" part so the infantilism alias is correct

See also topic #31485 (another attempt to alias to infantilism), which was already rejected but has some useful replies.

The bulk update request #8732 is active.

remove alias babyfur (0) -> infantilism (4918)
remove alias babyfurs (0) -> infantilism (4918)

Reason: May be added to baby/young incorrectly due to alias, see baby infantilism

EDIT: The bulk update request #8732 (forum #409966) has been approved by @scaliespe.

The bulk update request #8718 (forum #409828) has failed: Alias for diaperfur not found

The bulk update request #8718 (forum #409828) has been rejected by @scaliespe.

The bulk update request #8732 (forum #409966) has been approved by @scaliespe.

wat8548 said:

topic #32031 (unalias diaperfur[s]/ab[/]dl): unlike the diaper* tags, "abdl" does directly mention the "ab" part so the infantilism alias is correct

Even in this case, I think it's likely that ABDL gets tagged for nearly any use of diapers that isn't necessarily infantilism - if it's going to be aliased to anything, diaper is still likely a safer target.

scaliespe said:
Even in this case, I think it's likely that ABDL gets tagged for nearly any use of diapers that isn't necessarily infantilism - if it's going to be aliased to anything, diaper is still likely a safer target.

Or potentially moved to the invalid category, like babyfur

Adult baby can be displayed without a diaper, or where the diaper is obscured but the rest of the scene makes it obvious (pacifier)

The bulk update request #8733 is pending approval.

create alias babyfurs (0) -> babyfur (0)
change category babyfur (0) -> invalid

Reason: Would a disambiguation be better?

The bulk update request #8737 is pending approval.

create alias diaperfur (0) -> diaper (22926)
create alias diaperfurry (348) -> diaper (22926)
create alias diaper_fur (372) -> diaper (22926)
create alias diaper_furry (0) -> diaper (22926)
create alias diaper_lover (0) -> diaper (22926)

Reason: I manually checked every post that abdl and ab/dl have been added to in history (not that many, considering how old the alias is). The sole post that is not currently tagged diaper is post #93592. I guess we have to ask scaliespe to verify whether that one deserved the tag or not.

Also added diaper_lover, a tag included in one of the other BURs which still sees occasional use. The only case of it being added to a post not currently tagged diaper in history is the strange case of post #2734588. Looking at the source of that post, neither "diaper_lover" nor "diaper" were ever applicable tags. It looks like either an attempt at trolling or a really weird typo for the artist name?

wat8548 said:

Reason: I manually checked every post that abdl and ab/dl have been added to in history (not that many, considering how old the alias is). The sole post that is not currently tagged diaper is post #93592. I guess we have to ask scaliespe to verify whether that one deserved the tag or not.

The tags are correct; no diapers in sight. It’s pretty much what you’d expect to find in infantilism -diaper (ignoring mistags).

spe said:
The tags are correct; no diapers in sight. It’s pretty much what you’d expect to find in infantilism -diaper (ignoring mistags).

What's the alternative proposal, then? I know you said you wanted it to become a similar tag to bdsm, but I note the only two tags that currently imply bdsm are bondage and, for some reason, petplay. dominant and submissive are mentioned in the wiki page but not implied. So if abdl were to become a tag that exists primarily to be implied by diaper and infantilism, that would make it a lot more general than bdsm.

Very surprised that neither masochism nor sadism imply bdsm it’s literally in the name

In the hopes of at least getting a speedy approval for the currently existing problem, I've removed the abdl and ab/dl lines from BUR #8737. We shouldn't leave those tags in limbo forever, but it looks like a whole other discussion about whether bdsm is itself "used in a similar manner to bdsm" has started up now.