The tag implication #42998 barbie_doll_anatomy -> featureless_crotch has been rejected.

Reason: Barbie_doll_anatomy is redundant with featureless_crotch and featureless_breasts already in use.

EDIT: The tag implication barbie_doll_anatomy -> featureless_crotch (forum #324493) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.

According to the wiki, it doesn't have to be a featureless_crotch:

featureless_crotch and/or featureless_chest/featureless_breasts.

Just having featureless chest/breasts without a crotch in sight would fit the tag, and vice-versa.

Though this does create some oddities:
post #3097036
A very not-featureless crotch, but featureless breasts (in part due to poor viewing position obscuring any nipples there may be), technically counts but is probably not what people would expect.

watsit said:
According to the wiki, it doesn't have to be a featureless_crotch:
Just having featureless chest/breasts without a crotch in sight would fit the tag, and vice-versa.

Though this does create some oddities:
post #3097036
A very not-featureless crotch, but featureless breasts (in part due to poor viewing position obscuring any nipples there may be), technically counts but is probably not what people would expect.

Right. I don't think barbie_doll_anatomy is a useful tag because two other tags already convey the same thing (featureless_crotch & featureless_breasts).

makashi said:
Reason: Barbie_doll_anatomy is redundant with featureless_crotch and featureless_breasts already in use.

For redundant tags that can refer to multiple things, we usually invalidate them instead of implicating. e.g. category barbie_doll_anatomy -> invalid Then if the category change goes through, you add a wiki description along the lines of "please use either featureless_crotch, featureless_breasts, or both". You can submit category changes (among other things) through a 'BUR' (bulk update request).

The bulk update request #1846 is pending approval.

change category barbie_doll_anatomy (26) -> invalid

Reason: The tag as the wiki is written is functionally identical to the search ~featureless_crotch ~featureless_breasts. It might be useful as an umbrella tag, I suppose, but if such an umbrella is necessary, it should probably something more clear, like featureless_anatomy.

We can't just alias it to featureless_crotch or featureless_breasts/featureless_chest since it could be either or both. If this invalidation goes through, I plan to clean the tag.

matrixmash said:
Reason: The tag as the wiki is written is functionally identical to the search ~featureless_crotch ~featureless_breasts.

Honestly, I think it would be better to redefine the tag to refer to anthro or human(oid) characters with both a featureless_crotch and featureless_breasts/featureless_chest visible (and not in a "covered by fur" sense). That would be closer to the anatomy one would expect from a barbie doll.

The tag implication barbie_doll_anatomy -> featureless_crotch (forum #324493) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.