Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions
The bulk update request #13117 is pending approval.
remove implication disembodied_penis (70039) -> male (3091493)
Reason: Not sure what this is doing here. Considering "ghost penis" drawings where it's literally a floating peen this doesn't seem like a good implication. The wiki page says "This always counts as a male character, no exceptions." but doesn't give any reason for that.
I'd be quite happy to never look at that thread again. If this thread gets deleted as duplicate then so it goes, but that one's digressed to the point of no return and it'd be nice to have a fresh start.
Funny enough, the thread pretty much unanimously agrees that there are posts where the implication is inaccurate (particularly with gyno characters), but they got so sidetracked that nobody ended up doing anything.
Also, on another note this isn't even a very useful implication, cause you're gonna do gender tags more or less first thing. Unless you're like a superuser that just skips to doing the tags that implicate gender i guess.
furviewingaccount said:
you're gonna do gender tags more or less first thing. Unless you're like a superuser that just skips to doing the tags that implicate gender i guess.
You would be surprised of how common it's for people to either not tag genders at all, tag genders only for what they consider important part of the post, or make absolutely baffling concoctions with gender tags (and sometimes pairing tags too, because surprisingly large portion of people mistake them as something intended for tagging character gender identities). And no, it's rarely the super users doing any of this.
furviewingaccount
Considering "ghost penis" drawings where it's literally a floating peen this doesn't seem like a good implication.
posts like this will still be tagged male. we're not changing how the gender tags work and these are still male by those tags' definitions.
dba_afish said:
posts like this will still be tagged male. we're not changing how the gender tags work and these are still male by those tags' definitions.
I mean in the sense of literally conjured genitals, like phantom hands style. But we're repeating what happened last thread so it doesn't really matter. We agree that the alias isn't always applicable so it shouldn't be there, and determining when male is applicable is another related but separate discussion to be had.
furviewingaccount said:
I mean in the sense of literally conjured genitals, like phantom hands style. But we're repeating what happened last thread so it doesn't really matter. We agree that the alias isn't always applicable so it shouldn't be there, and determining when male is applicable is another related but separate discussion to be had.
That's still probably a case that should be tagged male. Just about the only category of cases that's really uncertain are ones like the example from that thread, post #1331018, and I'm not even sure if cases like that should be tagged disembodied_penis (since the entire issue is that the character is in view, albeit in a cutaway, while the disembodied_penis wiki says they can't be).
In the vast, vast majority of cases, the implication is correct, and removing the implication means the tag will often be missed.
scth said:
That's still probably a case that should be tagged male. Just about the only category of cases that's really uncertain are ones like the example from that thread, post #1331018, and I'm not even sure if cases like that should be tagged disembodied_penis (since the entire issue is that the character is in view, albeit in a cutaway, while the disembodied_penis wiki says they can't be).
There's ambiguity in it's wording. "If there's more than the penis and balls visible..." could be taken as if there's more connected to the penis and balls, like these:
post #5934213 post #6111231 post #6091647 post #6116216
where you can additionally see more to the penis even though the most or all of the body itself is out of frame, it should be tagged faceless_male instead of disembodied_penis. In posts like what you show, though, the penis and balls themselves are fully detached visually from the body, even though more of the character is shown separately in a cutaway.
scth said:
In the vast, vast majority of cases, the implication is correct, and removing the implication means the tag will often be missed.
Implications only need one valid counter-example to be incorrect, no matter how often it is correct. Unless you want to carve out an exception that the counter-example doesn't count for the tag to avoid the implication causing a mistag, but I think the counter-examples provided should be valid uses of disembodied_penis.
scth said:
That's still probably a case that should be tagged male.
there's instances like post #1508217 or post #5508014 where the disembodied penis is more of a conjured object than a separate entity, but at that point I'd question whether it should be tagged as a penis or a dildo.
You should not create duplicate requests that are still pending.
It completely undermines the previous discussion and submitted votes, no matter how undesirable you think it is to look at.
While the request is theoretically valid and likely to be eventually approved, your same reasoning is what derailed the existing topic
And also as TheGreatWolfgang says, you really should not make duplicate requests regardless of what happened in the original topic, fracturing the request among multiple topics is just going to result in the same points being brought up and ran around in a circle with again and doesn't really help anyone
