Vibrator implications

BUR #52092 is pending approval.

create implication vibrator_under_swimsuit -> swimsuit
create implication vibrator_under_swimsuit -> vibrator_under_clothes
create implication vibrator_under_pantyhose -> vibrator_under_clothes
create implication vibrator_under_pantyhose -> pantyhose
create implication vibrator_in_thigh_strap -> thigh_strap
create implication vibrator_in_thigh_strap -> vibrator
create implication vibrator_cord -> remote_control_vibrator

There are some ridiculous instances of for example vibrator_under_swimsuit without swimsuit and tonnes of vibrator_in_thigh_strap without thigh_strap. vibrator_under_clothes is an especially often forgotten tag.

In general, adding these implications will ensure more complete tagging.

BUR #52097 is pending approval.

mass update vibrator_under_swimsuit -> -vibrator_under_swimsuit vibrator_under_clothes swimsuit
deprecate vibrator_under_swimsuit
mass update vibrator_in_thigh_strap -> -vibrator_in_thigh_strap vibrator thigh_strap
deprecate vibrator_in_thigh_strap
create implication vibrator_under_pantyhose -> vibrator_under_clothes
create implication vibrator_under_pantyhose -> pantyhose

Both vibrator_under_swimsuit and vibrator_in_thigh_strap should be nuked, as they are identical to the vibrator_under_clothes swimsuit and vibrator thigh_strap searches, respectively. Neither search has many false positives.

I don't think vibrator_under_pantyhose is necessary either, but it at least has some potential merit in that it might filter out stuff like post #5334052 from post #6493763. I say "might" because for all I know, someone searching this tag is looking for both of those posts. There's also the fact that if this tag is given the green light, post #6493763 (and others like it) would have three tags for essentially the same thing: vibrator_under_pantyhose, vibrator_under_panties, and vibrator_under_clothes. For these reasons, I'm proposing two BURs; one that keeps vibrator_under_pantyhose, and one that nukes all three.

BUR #52098 is pending approval.

mass update vibrator_under_swimsuit -> -vibrator_under_swimsuit vibrator_under_clothes swimsuit
deprecate vibrator_under_swimsuit
mass update vibrator_in_thigh_strap -> -vibrator_in_thigh_strap vibrator thigh_strap
deprecate vibrator_in_thigh_strap
mass update vibrator_under_pantyhose -> -vibrator_under_pantyhose vibrator_under_clothes pantyhose
deprecate vibrator_under_pantyhose

As above.

AngryZapdos said:

BUR #52098 is pending approval.

mass update vibrator_under_swimsuit -> -vibrator_under_swimsuit vibrator_under_clothes swimsuit
deprecate vibrator_under_swimsuit
mass update vibrator_in_thigh_strap -> -vibrator_in_thigh_strap vibrator thigh_strap
deprecate vibrator_in_thigh_strap
mass update vibrator_under_pantyhose -> -vibrator_under_pantyhose vibrator_under_clothes pantyhose
deprecate vibrator_under_pantyhose

As above.

What about vibrator_cord to remote control vibrator

u42069 said:

What about vibrator_cord to remote control vibrator

What about it?

vibrator in thigh strap is not equivalent with vibrator thigh_strap.

nonamethanks said:

vibrator in thigh strap is not equivalent with vibrator thigh_strap.

90% of the last few pages of that search is vibrator_in_thigh_strap. I don't understand what you mean.

i don't like the "in thigh strap" either because sometimes the vibrator is on a rope around the thigh and you can't use the tag, but idk about deprecating it.

also i'm not sure about implying vibrator_cord -> remote_control_vibrator. i guess if wireless_sex_toy_controller already implies it then there is no problem with the cord implying it?