The tag implication #32110 areola_slip -> nipple_slip has been rejected.

Reason: The description for nipple_slip on the wiki implies it covers both nipple and areola slips.

EDIT: The tag implication areola_slip -> nipple_slip (forum #291859) has been rejected by @Millcore.

Alias?

hello_hello_123 said:
Alias?

No. The nipple is the tiny nub at the center of the areola, so having some of the areola appear won't necessarily mean that the nipple also appears. For that same reason, I cannot endorse the implication, either. Now, if the implication were reversed...

jacob said:
No. The nipple is the tiny nub at the center of the areola, so having some of the areola appear won't necessarily mean that the nipple also appears. For that same reason, I cannot endorse the implication, either. Now, if the implication were reversed...

I figure most people probably consider the areola as part of the nipple, and I don't think anyone who searches nipple_slip is would consider it incorrect to see just the areola peeking out.

I think nipple_slip must also be implicated to nipples... and -1 because some characters have either covered areola or none at all...

Another thing, the nipple_slip wiki needs to be changed a little...

jacob said:
Now, if the implication were reversed...

I disagree... some art of characters only have nipples and no areola...

The tag implication areola_slip -> nipple_slip (forum #291859) has been rejected by @Millcore.