Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions
The bulk update request #5538 has been rejected.
create implication diaper_only (2940) -> pantsless (3957)
create implication underwear_only (19586) -> pantsless (3957)
create implication underwear_only (19586) -> topless (127991)
Reason: If a character is only wearing a piece of underwear, then they're not wearing anything that goes on top of it.
EDIT: The bulk update request #5538 (forum #376412) has been rejected by @m3g4p0n1.
Updated by auto moderator
m3g4p0n1 said:
The bulk update request #5538 has been rejected.create implication diaper_only (2940) -> pantsless (3957)
create implication underwear_only (19586) -> pantsless (3957)
create implication underwear_only (19586) -> topless (127991)Reason: If a character is only wearing a piece of underwear, then they're not wearing anything that goes on top of it.
bras are underwear. Also, topless and pantsless should not be tagged on the same character.
m3g4p0n1 said:
But why shouldn't topless and pantsless be tagged together? Too redundant?
Because that's what topless and underwear_only are for. pantsless is a specialised tag for characters who are underdressed on the bottom half only. For the same reason, you shouldn't tag topless and bottomless for a nude character.
wat8548 said:
Because that's what topless and underwear_only are for. pantsless is a specialised tag for characters who are underdressed on the bottom half only. For the same reason, you shouldn't tag topless and bottomless for a nude character.
I think I get it, thanks for clarifying ๐
The bulk update request #5538 (forum #376412) has been rejected by @m3g4p0n1.
