imply stealth_* -> stealth

Posted under Tags

BUR #9319 has been rejected.

create implication stealth_* -> stealth

Most of the tags (below) with the prefix "stealth_" should imply the 'stealth' tag. Or, if that is not applicable, possibly the 'public_indecency' tag.


Take a look and see. Stealth has very few posts in it right now.
Also see public_indecency as I mentioned

So I noticed you went ahead and just decided what the tag should be used for and made a wiki for it.

If you actually check the posts it's currently applied to, there are several that have nothing to do with sex. post #1654279 and post #83109 for two examples, and there are some that don't even feature "stealth". Stealth is way too ambiguous of a term to limit it to exclusively sexual content, it would get misused all the time.

Besides that, I don't think that request would even work. You need to do each implication separately.

Protip: if you're going to write a wiki for a tag, try taking into account the way the tag is actually used. More than half the posts tagged stealth have no sexual activity whatsoever. That alone should be a sign that the wiki is completely wrong.

Moreover, the definition you came up with is basically just ~stealth_sex ~stealth_masturbation. We really don't need an umbrella tag for what is already covered by a two-tag search.

As for the rest of the posts tagged stealth, they look like a hodgepodge of hiding, sneaking, optical_camouflage, and whatever the hell post #4247322 is supposed to be. IMHO they should all be moved to less ambiguous tags, and stealth should be nuked entirely.