Implicating wardrobe_malfunction → accidental_exposure
Link to implication

Reason:

Wardrobe malfunction is a mishap involve clothing, and is almost always accidental. There may be rare cases where it is somewhat intentional because maybe the character knew the exposure would occur, but I feel most usage of wardrobe malfunction pretty much almost always implies being exposed on accident or, even if it is intentional by not trying to fix the possible risk of exposure, is usually exposure not done by the character themselves and I feel is categorized as accidental anyways.

EDIT: The tag implication wardrobe_malfunction -> accidental_exposure (forum #240505) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.

not to sure about this, exposure on e621 implies some form of undress/unclothed/nudity to be there while wardrobe_malfunction can include things as simple as panty shots from blown up skirts and popping buttons or clothing rippage from bulging muscles of a character wearing a t-shirt that is a size too small to withstand the stresses of bulging for exsample...

It may work if the implication was reversed

Accidental_exposure is a recent tag, and doesn't seem to offer anything that's not already covered by more popular tags.

Exposed includes accidental exposure, and wardrobe_malfuction exists specifically for clothing mishaps. Accidental_exposure might work as an exposed subtag, but except for wardrobe malfuctions, it's hard to tell when exposure is 'accidental'. So the tag doesn't seem worth keeping. I'd suggest just sorting it out manually.

Not to mention that it's tagged for a lot of stuff such as this:
post #124275 post #111505 post #111466
...no exposure. Those belong in panty_shot.

There's also situations where wardrobe_malfunction is planned, and thus is not 'accidental'. Posts where characters intentionally flex to rip/pop open their clothing could count, here's a recent example:
post #1306782

JAKXXX3 said:
There's also situations where wardrobe_malfunction is planned, and thus is not 'accidental'. Posts where characters intentionally flex to rip/pop open their clothing could count, here's a recent example:
post #1306782

I wouldn't consider someone intentionally ripping their own clothes as a wardrobe malfunction. Cutting someone's clothes so it falls off them later would be a better example.

The tag implication wardrobe_malfunction -> accidental_exposure (forum #240505) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.