create implication female_pov -> pov
Practically the same thing. And pov doesn't state that this tag is male_pov.
Posted under Tags
create implication female_pov -> pov
Practically the same thing. And pov doesn't state that this tag is male_pov.
If we go this route, would we need a male pov tag, or would pov -female_pov be sufficient to cover it?
Link to the previous discussion: topic #12047. It ended by being rejected, but the responses didn't seem against the idea of creating this implication.
Three possibilities in my eyes:
1. The implication is approved
2. The pov wiki page gets edited because the vast majority is male_pov -> Pov is male_pov and female_pov is a separate tag.
3. Create a male_pov tag and the pov tag is fot both female and male.
I think the least confusing action is the first one but I can also live with the 2nd one.
The third option is do much work :c.
Since the object(ifications) of a majority of images here are female, and presumed toward a male audience, we've had tags such as male_focus and male_pubic_hair without female_focus or female_pubic_hair. I'd be alright with this implication; just, if we're gonna have male_pov in the mix, I'd see it as less clutter (and more presumptuous) to have that aliased to pov instead.