Topic: Tag implication: soiled_diaper -> feces

The tag implication #67179 soiled_diaper -> feces is pending approval.

Reason: soiled_diaper implies feces, plus soiling_diaper already implicates feces

Using this thread to bump topic #39182

Also no, soiling diaper does not imply feces, it implies pooping which does not imply feces (you can show someone pooping on the toilet without showing feces) The question is whether there is a scenario where you can see a soiled diaper without being able to tag feces).

snpthecat said:
Using this thread to bump topic #39182

Also no, soiling diaper does not imply feces, it implies pooping which does not imply feces (you can show someone pooping on the toilet without showing feces) The question is whether there is a scenario where you can see a soiled diaper without being able to tag feces).

It implies soiling which implies feces

This implication has precedent as both wetting_diaper (wetting_diaper -> wetting -> urine) and wet_diaper (wet_diaper -> urine) imply urine

donovan_dmc said:
It implies soiling which implies feces

This implication has precedent as both wetting_diaper (wetting_diaper -> wetting -> urine) and wet_diaper (wet_diaper -> urine) imply urine

Ah fair enough

So the question now is whether soiled diaper should imply soiling, or more specifically whether soiling applies to both present and past instances of soiling as the wiki states

Bumping this topic because I recently tagged an image as soiled_diaper (since the diaper had already been soiled, and therefore was not soiling_diaper) but forgot to tag feces and therefore a user was (rightfully!) upset that it slipped past their blacklist.

It seems the wiki page now agrees that a soiled_diaper is "a diaper that is filled with feces" (as opposed to the more general used_diaper).

The bulk update request #12569 is pending approval.

remove implication soiling_diaper (3807) -> diaper (35462)

Reason: Splitting this off from the other BUR (which you should go check out btw)

It implies through another route.