The tag alias #72382 penis_dildo -> dildo has been approved.

Reason: Why? Who tags like this?

EDIT: The tag alias penis_dildo -> dildo (forum #419757) has been approved by @slyroon.

The tag alias penis_dildo -> dildo (forum #419757) has been approved by @slyroon.

There are non-penis dildos:
post #5054766 post #5046358

Admittedly they seem pretty rare in comparison, so they should probably get their own tag. Penis-shaped dildos are much more common, but if non-penis-shaped dildos are also tagged dildo, there can be use for a separate penis_dildo tag.

watsit said:
There are non-penis dildos:
post #5054766 post #5046358

Admittedly they seem pretty rare in comparison, so they should probably get their own tag. Penis-shaped dildos are much more common, but if non-penis-shaped dildos are also tagged dildo, there can be use for a separate penis_dildo tag.

I think better option would be a tag for dildos that are not penis shaped, since they are not the standard, and it would be much less of a hassle to maintain to the extent that it would be useful.

rupikonna said:
I think better option would be a tag for dildos that are not penis shaped, since they are not the standard, and it would be much less of a hassle to maintain to the extent that it would be useful.

Yeah, that's the minimum I think should happen. But if both penis-shaped and non-penis-shaped dildos are under the dildo tag, while non-penis-shaped dildos get their own tag, there can still be a use for a tag indicating a penis-shaped dildo. It's the same reason characters or species with alternate form tags don't implicate the main character tag (e.g. link_(wolf_form) and link_(rabbit_form) don't implicate link), or they implicate a base only when the base doesn't indicate a distinct form (sky_forme_shaymin and land_forme_shaymin implicate shaymin, because every shaymin must be land forme and/or sky forme, and shouldn't be tagged shaymin on its own).

watsit said:
Yeah, that's the minimum I think should happen. But if both penis-shaped and non-penis-shaped dildos are under the dildo tag, while non-penis-shaped dildos get their own tag, there can still be a use for a tag indicating a penis-shaped dildo. It's the same reason characters or species with alternate form tags don't implicate the main character tag (e.g. link_(wolf_form) and link_(rabbit_form) don't implicate link), or they implicate a base only when the base doesn't indicate a distinct form (sky_forme_shaymin and land_forme_shaymin implicate shaymin, because every shaymin must be land forme and/or sky forme, and shouldn't be tagged shaymin on its own).

Haven't checked the overall composition of the dildo tag, but I would presume most are penis shaped dildos, and we don't tag defaults?

Also would the tag just basically be ~humanoid_dildo ~animal_dildo? Though that may encounter problems if its structure is obscured, usually when it's being used

snpthecat said:
Haven't checked the overall composition of the dildo tag, but I would presume most are penis shaped dildos, and we don't tag defaults?

We don't tag the expected. open_eyes is expected, it's applicable to the vast majority of posts with visible eyes, for example. But I'm not sure if I'd classify penis-shaped dildos as the "expected" by the same margin. It's certainly the most common, but so is anthro.

watsit said:
We don't tag the expected. open_eyes is expected, it's applicable to the vast majority of posts with visible eyes, for example. But I'm not sure if I'd classify penis-shaped dildos as the "expected" by the same margin. It's certainly the most common, but so is anthro.

I mean, if you're looking for dildos, I would expect that most people would expect penis shaped dildos

snpthecat said:
I mean, if you're looking for dildos, I would expect that most people would expect penis shaped dildos

I think I would equally expect something to look like a penis, or just be a generic piece of silicone. I don't think there's a tag for the latter either.

Non-penis dildo?

Abstract_dildo is what I've seen them called in shops.