Nuke Making Love pool

BUR #57140 has been rejected.

mass update pool:544 -pov -couple -> couple
mass update pool:544 pov -> happy_sex
nuke pool:544

The Making Love pool seems to predate the couple tag by about a year, and over the years it's become redundant with it.
The simplest solution would be to add the couple tag to the whole pool and nuke it. The point of conflict are several pov posts that aren't fit for the couple tag because they only show the girl being fucked. For those, I think happy sex is a better choice. This applies to 99% of the hetero pics there, but others like post #10427775 don't seem to fall into either couple or happy_sex. (there were also a few solo pov pics that I removed from the pool because they didn't fit it at all).
It's a somewhat messy solution, so I want to hear better ideas.

There's nothing in the pool description that suggests it would be for couples only. In fact, there are 16 threesome posts in the pool.

Also, the participants need to be visibly happy for it to qualify as happy sex. Intimacy by itself isn't enough.

I think "Making Love" has a specific vibe that items in just couple sex or happy sex fail to meet. "Making Love" is about the intimacy and joy of all participants, which your average 1girl solo_focus happy_sex search is just going to fail to met.

I'm not sure what can be done, but I'm pro conversion and anti nuking at least.

Knowledge_Seeker said in forum #426829:

"Making Love" is about the intimacy and joy of all participants, which your average 1girl solo_focus happy_sex search is just going to fail to met.

In that case, shouldn't most of those POV posts be removed from the pool? Since they only show one participant, and are generally light on the "intimacy".

Is there anything to be gained from nuking a long-standing pool that has a vibe that people enjoy? I'm personally entirely opposed. It's doing its job in a way suggested changes wouldn't and I think the fact that it can't be clearly nailed down with a handful of other tags speaks to that.

I personally think the posts with pov crotch should be removed from the pool, the couple must have an equal focus similar to Female Gaze Hetero.

Fenton said in forum #427069:

I personally think the posts with pov crotch should be removed from the pool, the couple must have an equal focus similar to Female Gaze Hetero.

I can agree with this, pov crotch definitely does not fit the vibe of the pool. I know a lot of these types of pools are ymmv but that seems pretty obvious its not what the pool is for.

That being said, it should be cleaned up a bit not abolished. It's otherwise fairly time consuming and not easily searchable to find the type of content contained in the pool.

The bulk update request #57140 (forum #426746) has been rejected by @nonamethanks.

Fenton said in forum #427069:

I personally think the posts with pov crotch should be removed from the pool, the couple must have an equal focus similar to Female Gaze Hetero.

"Equal focus" isn't the rule for Female Gaze Hetero, it's what's given as the maximum amount of focus that should be on the female character. The example given for the minimum amount of the female character that must be present is "at least as much as post #4537012," and in the example given, the only part of the female character that's visible is her hands. I don't see anything to indicate that pov crotch wouldn't fit in both Making Love and Female Gaze Hetero. If you want to use Female Gaze Hetero as the standard then it's definitely allowed considering the standard set by the example.