cervical_penetration definition clarification?

I was looking through some cervical_penetration posts, as one does, and I noticed that there seem to be quite a few posts with the tag where a penis is up against the entrance to the cervix, but definitely not "penetrating" it. For a few examples: post #4469976, post #4296280, post #4281847, post #4255522

I feel like most of these clearly aren't penetration of the cervix. There are some cases where it seems like the tag is being used when a penis is maybe "spreading" the "neck" of the cervix. However, I feel like cervical penetration canonically should be when the penis very clearly goes INTO the uterus (see post #3924718), or at least is visible from the other side (see post #4463729).

If there's demand for a tag for not-quite-cervical-penetration, perhaps deep_penetration could be amended to include penises reaching the cervix through penetration? Or maybe a new tag entirely?

wavedash said:

I was looking through some cervical_penetration posts, as one does, and I noticed that there seem to be quite a few posts with the tag where a penis is up against the entrance to the cervix, but definitely not "penetrating" it. For a few examples: post #4469976, post #4296280, post #4281847, post #4255522

I feel like most of these clearly aren't penetration of the cervix. There are some cases where it seems like the tag is being used when a penis is maybe "spreading" the "neck" of the cervix. However, I feel like cervical penetration canonically should be when the penis very clearly goes INTO the uterus (see post #3924718), or at least is visible from the other side (see post #4463729).

If there's demand for a tag for not-quite-cervical-penetration, perhaps deep_penetration could be amended to include penises reaching the cervix through penetration? Or maybe a new tag entirely?

Those posts are definitely not cervix penetration. deep_penetration x-ray should already cover those cases, so feel free to fix incorrectly tagged posts whenever you encounter them.

nonamethanks said:

Those posts are definitely not cervix penetration. deep_penetration x-ray should already cover those cases, so feel free to fix incorrectly tagged posts whenever you encounter them.

It seems like deep penetration wouldn't suit most of the examples I linked either. Definitely not post #4255522 or post #4281847, since there's a good amount of dick visible. I don't know if post #4469976 would technically count because you can't see the base of the guy's dick.

wavedash said:

It seems like deep penetration wouldn't suit most of the examples I linked either. Definitely not post #4255522 or post #4281847, since there's a good amount of dick visible. I don't know if post #4469976 would technically count because you can't see the base of the guy's dick.

I was always bothered by the dick needing to "hilt" to qualify for deep penetration. If we took the tag name at face value, it should apply whenever an object, it shouldn't be limited to dicks, is penetrating deeply. If the cervix is being pressed against, or there's a visible bulge in the stomach, that should count. The current definition excludes a lot of things just because they can't completely "hilt" within the vagina, while also including things that aren't actually deep penetrations, like a "hilted" small penis.

I agree with blindVigil, "deep penetration" would make more sense if it allowed those posts as well. "technically" clauses are always a terrible idea for tags because a very small percentage of uploaders actually bothers to read the wiki definitions.

I would guess that the requirement is written the way it is so that it includes anal, where there's no good internal measure of depth, but it seems too strict as it is. There are probably some oneshota x-ray images where the dick doesn't come close to the cervix that would qualify for deep penetration because the definition relies on the penis being all the way in. I say "probably" because I don't have gold, but here's an external example: gelbooru #5798332.