[X] My Assistant

peterson poked at me about standardizing the birth tags. Particularly, these three:
- https://ehwiki.org/wiki/anal_birth
- https://ehwiki.org/wiki/nipple_birth
- https://ehwiki.org/wiki/penis_birth

The issue concerns this note from the "anal birth" definition:

Does not require the birth tag.

...which is absent from both "nipple birth" and "penis birth".

I'm planning to add this note to all existing birth "sub-tags", but want to hear if there is any reason that this shouldn't be the case.

Note that this one specific tag note will very unlikely be removed for "anal birth" due to quirkiness with the veto system. So the main focus of this discussion would be why these three tags should stay inconsistent.

I would argue that the discussion should be if birth should be a requirement or a exclusion for these tags, but since it is unlikely for it to be removed, the note addition is approved by me.

Semi-related, should the "One image is enough for this tag unless it is within a random set of images" note in these tags be kept? It's a rare instance of it being a thing. If it's to be kept I suggest to rephrase it to "One image is enough for this tag unless it is within an imageset".

I am all for making this consistent, obviously.

Searching "birth" will still find all four birth variations. Only by bringing the two remaining ones in line with anal birth (i.e. make them not require birth), we can create an easy and reliable way to have "birth$" find only galleries containing a vaginal birth.

Semi-related, should the "One image is enough for this tag unless it is within a random set of images" note in these tags be kept? It's a rare instance of it being a thing. If it's to be kept I suggest to rephrase it to "One image is enough for this tag unless it is within an imageset".

These "one image xxx" notes usually involves the admin, so I will need to double-check with him before messing with it.

That being said, it should be noted that not all imagesets have their images randomized/disconnected. Some do have a consistent flow/story from time to time.

This falls under a long since abandoned idea that tags that already contained the "master" version of the tag in its name didn't need the master tag, as the tag would still appear for one searching for said master. Ergo, someone searching "birth" would also find all the subversions. This was long before the current GUI or "search by tag"-button.

The single image thing for birth was simply a shoe-horn-special rule for how rarely the content was longer then a single image. Again, before alternative methods to fulfil solid presence in the gallery even if the "act" was just shown for a single panel (example; how impregnation works).

Rather than adding the note to all the birth tags, how about we merely change birth to vaginal birth and save the time adding the note each time we have a new birth tag?

Almost forgot this is a thing.

This falls under a long since abandoned idea that tags that already contained the "master" version of the tag in its name didn't need the master tag, as the tag would still appear for one searching for said master. Ergo, someone searching "birth" would also find all the subversions. This was long before the current GUI or "search by tag"-button.

It's probably debatable whether we should discard it completely for future tags. Since this logic could (unintentionally?) enhances the search experience over the catch-them-all tags in some circumstances.

Say if I want a specific birth variant (i.e. vaginal birth) only, I need the exclude other birth tags, meaning the potential for over-filtering.

But with this current implementation, it's just the matter of doing a "birth$" tag search. And if I wanna do a catch-all later, just type "birth" and it will index everything with a "birth" in it.

Rather than adding the note to all the birth tags, how about we merely change birth to vaginal birth and save the time adding the note each time we have a new birth tag?

Eh, know what, I'm actually on board with this.

It's kinda meh that we have to specify it *is* vagina when talking about birth. But the hentai world is rather wild.

I might just opt for a rename if there is no objection.

Eh, know what, I'm actually on board with this.
It's kinda meh that we have to specify it *is* vagina when talking about birth. But the hentai world is rather wild.
I might just opt for a rename if there is no objection.

Sounds good to me

I might just opt for a rename if there is no objection.

Has my support

But will be 'birth' slaved to 'vaginal birth'?

It's by far the most common use of the tag, but need some confirmation.