The bulk update request #5748 is active.

remove implication sling_bikini (6780) -> bikini (81164)

Reason: The name is really a misnomer because it's an one-piece_swimsuit designed to provide the same coverage as a bikini, not a true bikini, and shouldn't imply it as such.

A better target would either be one-piece_swimsuit or just plainly swimwear.

implication #1931 has been around for over 10 years now, and seemed to be created without any discussion.

EDIT: The bulk update request #5748 (forum #380305) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

I'm not sure about that. Sling bikini is called bikini. It's in the name.

hjfduitloxtrds said:
I'm not sure about that. Sling bikini is called bikini. It's in the name.

Bikinis are two piece swimwear, sling bikinis are one piece swimwear. Just because it's in the name doesn't make it that thing. Which is why OP called it a misnomer, or a name inaccurate to what it is.

From wikipedia for sling bikini:

The sling swimsuit is a one-piece swimsuit which is supported by fabric at the neck. ... The sling swimsuit is also known by a variety of names including "suspender bikini", "sling bikini", "slingkini", "suspender thong", "slingshot swimsuit" or just "slingshot".

From wikipedia for bikini:

A bikini is a two-piece swimsuit primarily worn by girls and women that features one piece on top that covers the breasts, and a second piece on the bottom

By definition a sling bikini cannot be a bikini.

The wiki page for sling_bikini also calls it a one piece (the same wikipedia excerpt), and the page for bikini also states that they're two piece swimsuits.

hjfduitloxtrds said:
I'm not sure about that. Sling bikini is called bikini. It's in the name.

Imply tarantula_hawk to tarantula and hawk

definitelynotafurry4 said:
The wiki page for sling_bikini also calls it a one piece (the same wikipedia excerpt), and the page for bikini also states that they're two piece swimsuits.

The one-piece_swimsuit article also interestingly already lists sling_bikini as a type of one-piece swimsuit.

The implication is pretty much the only thing that says otherwise on e621.

faucet said:
Imply tarantula_hawk to tarantula and hawk

Um no, just imply tarantula_hawk to hawk because tarantula is describing a type of hawk which eats tarantulas, rather than a type of tarantula.
Seriously, though, I hardly compare implying a species to another species to removing an implication involving a swimsuit. totally different things here.
Anyway, all things considered, you're probably right. I have better things to do than argue with privileged users.

definitelynotafurry4 said:
Bikinis are two piece swimwear, sling bikinis are one piece swimwear. Just because it's in the name doesn't make it that thing. Which is why OP called it a misnomer, or a name inaccurate to what it is.

From wikipedia for sling bikini:
From wikipedia for bikini:
By definition a sling bikini cannot be a bikini.

The wiki page for sling_bikini also calls it a one piece (the same wikipedia excerpt), and the page for bikini also states that they're two piece swimsuits.

Fair enough. A sling bikini is not a bikini, though the name makes it sound like one.

hjfduitloxtrds said:
Um no, just imply tarantula_hawk to hawk because tarantula is describing a type of hawk which eats tarantulas, rather than a type of tarantula.

Actually tarantula hawk is aliased to tarantula hawk wasp, which is a type of spider wasp, so as demonstrated, names can be misleading

Bumping this now requests are actually being dealt with, it again just wrongly forced bikini onto a post I just uploaded (post #4668992)

The bulk update request #5748 (forum #380305) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #7208 is active.

create implication sling_bikini (6780) -> one-piece_swimsuit (19627)

Reason: Better destination for the implication

EDIT: The bulk update request #7208 (forum #397011) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #7208 (forum #397011) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.