(NSFW) Document and adjust "bent penis" / "180 penis" tag family

• bentpenis apparently is a mistype of bent penis; thankfully, the mistyped tag is empty, so I propose to simply remove it;  
• bent dick is obviously a synonym of bent penis, so I propose to alias on of them into the other;
   
• 180 penis implies nudity, which is wrong coz the penis owner still may wear clothes; I propose to remove the implication. (upd: beyond the scope)
   
• the “## penis” tag subfamily totally lacks a description;  
• supposedly meaning “a character’s erected penis is heading ## degrees relatively of its natural orientation”, I propose to remove the empty 360 penis, coz a 360-degree deviation means no deviation — did they mean 270?
   
• I propose the following description for 90 penis:  
  ~~

A character has their erected penis turned 90 degrees from its natural chest-ward direction, usually held there by thighs, or some obstacle.

“90 penis” (“90-degree penis”) = An erected penis perpendicular to its owner’s belly.

A character has their erected penis declined half-way towards the opposite of its natural chest-ward direction, usually held there by their thighs, gravity (?), or some obstacle.

This image is blocked by your current filter - click here to display it anyway

your current filter.

 

• I propose the following description for 180 penis:  
  ~~

A character has their erected penis turned 180 degrees from its natural chest-ward direction, usually while laying on belly, or the penis being pulled with a rope, etc.

“180 penis” (“180-degree penis”) = An erected penis facing opposite to its owner’s head end.

A character has their erected penis facing opposite to its natural chest-ward direction, usually while laying on belly, or the penis being pulled with a rope or other external force.

This image is blocked by your current filter - click here to display it anyway

your current filter.

 
upd: maybe include semi-erect penises hanging down by own weight
 
Please edit into proper English.
 
As a parallel approach, I propose to introduce two tags:
 

• “penis behind thighs” for images where the dick is held bent backwards by its owner’s thighs pressed together (“self penis thigh-hold”?);
   
• “penis bent backwards” for images where the dick heads more or less backwards coz pulled or pushed by an external object/obstacle; I’d add this tag as an implication to the 180 tag, and maybe to the 90.
   
  Please also edit into proper English, and maybe there are better names for the tags.
   
  It’s probably not a big thing whether a dick heads 180 degrees backwards straight from its base, or acquires that angle eventually? ‘x)  
  Maybe it’s where bent penis would come to the stage, described something like “When a character’s semi-erected/not-fully-erected penis is curved”. You know: English, please.

• 180 penis implies nudity, which is wrong coz the penis owner still may wear clothes; I propose to remove the implication.

More often than not, they are nude. At the very least, they are partially nude/clothed. It follows the genitalia implication paradigm, where all of them imply nudity by default. (See: penis, vulva, anatomically correct, and anus for examples) Or I could’ve just linked nudity, which has the full list of implications.  

This image is blocked by your current filter - click here to display it anyway

your current filter.

 
bottomless and topless both imply clothes, partial nudity, and should be applied where necessary.

If I get it right, in English bent means “temporarily not straight”, and curved “naturally not straight”.

“more often” is not enough for implication, only “always” is

where did you lean English?

Please, it’s great that you are trying to help

and its concepts collide with mine

if you tag what you see in an image, and not what is not there, and implied tags jump in automatically when you add an implying tag, that logically means that you add implications to what is always implied only

if you tag what you see in an image, and not what is not there,

and implied tags jump in automatically when you add an implying tag,

that logically means that you add implications to what is always implied only.

To me, “more often” is not enough for implication, only “always” is

My humble request thread about documenting tag relations is still on its way

As the “nudity” tag is undocumented, I look for the word’s dictionary definition: “the state of not wearing any clothes”.

I’m sorry that’s the case.

consider that you are in opposition to the community consensus

how we tag

If a tag is only implied, we do not imply it.

We are using one word in multiple ways, and it is important to remember the context of the use of the word.

On this site, you are never going to get the perfect situation

My humble request thread

This is not a dictionary site.

if you are reaching for a translation dictionary to find out what a word means, you are probably going to be confused

Since the person who created that thread did so anonymously

What tag-implication looks like to me from my experience on the site: people see appledash, tag it “appledash”, give no buck about tag-implications that have just jumped in that very instant, and move on. Or they tag “implied appledash” as “appledash” and move on. Or don’t tag.

That’s why I’d like to see more tags described, because not all users are native Englings, and even native Englings sometimes misuse tags in all their innocence (I might’ve arbitrarily extended the scope of words which context you advise to keep in mind).

That’s why I’d like to see more tags described

One problem with doing this is that adding a description to a tag conveys an “official definition” to the tag.
 
You may have noticed that we’ll add descriptions to OCs at the drop of a hat - because that’s the OC’s creator call, their words, their description. No one is going to open reports based on it, no one is going to flip tables, sue the site, or threaten to murder any of the volunteers helping to keep the site running because of the content of the description of that OC’s tag.
 
But defining any of the other tags on the site is a process that sometimes can take weeks, months, or even years. There’s one tag that I added what I thought was the simplest of possible definitions to many years ago.
 
And that description is still being debated and about once or twice a year it becomes another weeks long discussion.
 
Because words are important. And when you are working with community consensus, it is rare that the consensus doesn’t change.
 
Just look at the definition of the tags “Infidelity” or “Rape”. You’d think those would be easy to define, right?
 

This image is blocked by your current filter - click here to display it anyway

your current filter.

 
 

This is not a dictionary site.

Please document tags. Mistagging arises from, among other things, various people understanding words in a different way.

 
Where it is appropriate and useful and necessary, sure, of course. We do that already. Even though sometimes it takes years to agree on a definition.
 
But I challenge you: Define “Vore”.
 
If you search for it, you’ll see that we have a definition for it, but that’s a working definition. And it’s probably one of the best examples of why perfectly defining terms where no one disagrees or everyone is at least equally ok with the result can be almost impossible.
 
I think for a global fan-run website with as many active users as this site has, that has been around for so long as this site has been around, we’re doing pretty well. And for most tags that don’t have a definition, looking at the image search results itself can show “the scope” for the definition of the term (which, in some cases, can be enormous).
 
Is it perfect?
 
Nope.
 
But it’s like our rules.
 

@Brokedownandmadeone
So, you tag an image, implied tags jump in, and you see one implication is not applicable to the image; you remove it and it’s simply gone?
What ‘bout nudity and partial nudity? How’d you explain these?

わかります。 大丈夫でしょ。

adding a description to a tag conveys an “official definition” to the tag

I challenge you: Define “Vore”.

I don’t see any community consensus