The bulk update request #101 is active.
create implication male_on_bottom (61170) -> on_bottom (115680)
create implication male_on_bottom (61170) -> male (2969842)
create implication female_on_bottom (8471) -> on_bottom (115680)
create implication female_on_bottom (8471) -> female (2973952)
create implication ambiguous_on_bottom (522) -> on_bottom (115680)
create implication ambiguous_on_bottom (522) -> ambiguous_gender (375338)
create implication intersex_on_bottom (2136) -> on_bottom (115680)
create implication intersex_on_bottom (2136) -> intersex (295407)
create implication andromorph_on_bottom (130) -> intersex_on_bottom (2136)
create implication andromorph_on_bottom (130) -> andromorph (29232)
create implication gynomorph_on_bottom (1672) -> intersex_on_bottom (2136)
create implication gynomorph_on_bottom (1672) -> gynomorph (231137)
create implication herm_on_bottom (215) -> intersex_on_bottom (2136)
create implication herm_on_bottom (215) -> herm (31498)
create implication maleherm_on_bottom (62) -> intersex_on_bottom (2136)
create implication maleherm_on_bottom (62) -> maleherm (5505)
create implication cowgirl_position (56561) -> on_bottom (115680)
create implication reverse_cowgirl_position (22355) -> on_bottom (115680)
Reason: There is already a group of tags for on_top, but not for the on_bottom opposite.
Having both <gender>_on_top and <gender>_on_bottom will certainly improve searchability.
on_top and on_bottom themselves might not be directly helpfull, as they will always be both present. They might be replaced by only one tag, or be aliased to on_top_(disambiguation)/on_bottom_(disambiguation).
Thoughts ?
EDIT: The bulk update request #101 (forum #292606) has been approved by @Millcore.
Updated by auto moderator