Deprecate no_genitals

BUR #46403 has been rejected.

deprecate no_genitals

The wiki says this tag is supposed to be for genderless characters with a blank crotch, but it is consistently used in place of (or as a parent tag to) no_pussy and no_penis, which is hardly surprising given the tag's generic name.

That being said, I would still be questioning its purpose even if it wasn't so prone to mistags. I imagine it's supposed to be for fetish content like post #7692840, but it's also on all sorts of unrelated stuff like post #8538426, post #8816838, post #8123569, and post #6117761. I'm of the opinion that we can safely rid ourselves of no_genitals and just use null_bulge in tandem with the *other* tags for said fetish content.

The tag's name seems perfect to me. What the wiki says is largely irrelevant, because as we all know, no one reads them.
It's usage seems intuitive, so trying to replace it with a poorly named, unknown to many tag, that basically serves the same purpose, seems wrong.
If you re-define the wiki, garden the current tag, then it will still be polluted. If you make a new tag with a strange name like "null bulge", no one will use it, which solves the pollution issue, but then what's the point of a tag that so few know about. It seems like a lose - lose situation.
Also, the name "empty_crotch" might be better, or at least more understandable.
Out of the posts you mentioned, I have issues with the ones where the crotch isn't fully visible (post #8123569, post #6117761), where the crotch being empty makes anatomical sense, since the genitals might be placed elsewhere (post #8816838), so only 2 of the 5 posts seem properly tagged to me.
Adding a line to the wiki about seeing the crotch fully, or well enough, might solve some of the issues. If the crotch is covered by fur, it's wrong to use the tag. If the crotch *might* not have genitals by default, using the tag also seems wrong to me - in the insect girl example, the genitals should/might be in the insect area, not in the human area.

MiiaBestLamia said:

The tag's name seems perfect to me. What the wiki says is largely irrelevant, because as we all know, no one reads them.
It's usage seems intuitive...

Its usage is most definitely not intuitive with its current name. The amount of mistags that have had to be cleaned up screams unintuitive, and it all stems from how easily confused it is for no_pussy and no_penis. I assumed it was supposed to be a parent tag for them until I looked through it and read its wiki.

...so trying to replace it with a poorly named, unknown to many tag, that basically serves the same purpose, seems wrong.

This tag is already poorly named and unknown to many. null_bulge isn't the greatest name, but it definitely won't make users assume with confidence that the tag is for something else entirely, making it leagues ahead of no_genitals.

Is there a specific reason why we bother to split this up in no penis and no pussy to begin with?
Because to correctly use them as they stand now you need to have the knowledge what a character usually has down there and/or what their gender is. Which is even more fun to determine with androgynous original characters.

If this tag is mistagged so often, wouldn't it make more sense to alias both no penis and no pussy to no genitals and then use null bulge wherever it's applicable when a character has a bulge down there. Optionally change the name of this tag to something else.

Note that no penis, no pussy, and no genitals aren't mutually exclusive with penis and pussy so this shouldn't mess with searchability if you are searching for posts with more than one character.

GabrielWB said:

Is there a specific reason why we bother to split this up in no penis and no pussy to begin with?
Because to correctly use them as they stand now you need to have the knowledge what a character usually has down there and/or what their gender is. Which is even more fun to determine with androgynous original characters.

If this tag is mistagged so often, wouldn't it make more sense to alias both no penis and no pussy to no genitals and then use null bulge wherever it's applicable when a character has a bulge down there. Optionally change the name of this tag to something else.

Why do we have four different tags for what is effectively the same thing? The specific type of absent genitals shouldn't matter; only that there's nothing there.

It would make more sense to alias no penis, no pussy, and null bulge to no genitals (or, if it must remain a separate tag, maybe have null_bulge imply no genitals).

Akihi said:

Why do we have four different tags for what is effectively the same thing? The specific type of absent genitals shouldn't matter; only that there's nothing there.

It would make more sense to alias no penis, no pussy, and null bulge to no genitals (or, if it must remain a separate tag, maybe have null_bulge imply no genitals).

No penis and no pussy serve an irreplicable purpose. Without them, you can't filter between women missing their genitals and men missing their genitals. 1boy ~no_penis ~no_pussy returns 16 pages, and 11 of those are from no pussy, so you couldn't use 1boy no_genitals to replace no penis. You could add solo, but that turns it into a 3 tag search, and excludes posts with multiple boys. I don't think this is a concept that should require three+ tags just to filter between male and female examples. There's a reason we split tags like pubic hair into male and female examples.

The issue is squarely on no genitals and null bulge.

blindVigil said:

No penis and no pussy serve an irreplicable purpose. Without them, you can't filter between women missing their genitals and men missing their genitals.

[...]

The issue is squarely on no genitals and null bulge.

The issue most definitely has overlap with the no pussy and no penis tags.

If we were to deprecate no genitals, posts like post #4124540 featuring Rimuru Tempest who is genderless would be left with no tags. We could then slap both no penis AND no pussy on that post as a replacement, but that would in turn spill over into the very search results you are trying to filter to begin with.

GabrielWB said:

The issue most definitely has overlap with the no pussy and no penis tags.

If we were to deprecate no genitals, posts like post #4124540 featuring Rimuru Tempest who is genderless would be left with no tags. We could then slap both no penis AND no pussy on that post as a replacement, but that would in turn spill over into the very search results you are trying to filter to begin with.

I don't know you thought I meant, but what I actually meant was that there's nothing wrong with no penis and no pussy and aliasing them away would be a net negative to user experience. No genitals being ambiguous and misused and whether or not null bulge works as a replacement (I don't really think it does, personally) are the issues that need to be addressed. Aliasing away no penis and no pussy is only a fix for that in the laziest sense.

And yes, deprecating no genitals without a suitable replacement would just result either in posts going untagged and unsearchable or polluting those two tags. I never said I was in favor of deprecating it.

This bulk update request is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 45 days.

The bulk update request #46403 (forum #379688) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.