The bulk update request #12028 is pending approval.
remove implication sheath_cage (1952) -> chastity_cage (26197)
remove implication in-sheath_cage (147) -> chastity_cage (26197)
create implication sheath_chastity_cage (0) -> chastity_cage (26197)
create implication over_sheath_chastity_cage (0) -> sheath_chastity_cage (0)
create implication in_sheath_chastity_cage (0) -> sheath_chastity_cage (0)
remove alias sheath_chastity (0) -> chastity_device (30643)
Reason: Brings these in line with other chastity tags.
- Between the 2 variants of sheath-based chastity (in-sheath_cage & sheath_cage), sheath_cage is far more tagged, and many posts tagged as such should actually be tagged as in-sheath_cage. This is likely due to the ambiguous name. The wiki page clarifies this, but renaming the tag to directly contrast w/ in-sheath_cage would both eliminate ambiguity & imply the existence of an opposing tag.
- In cases where the user is unsure of which variant to add, having an overarching sheath chastity tag would prevent mistags.
- in-sheath_cage & sheath_cage don't include chastity in the name, making it difficult for users to find them.
- Unlike slit_chastity, sheath chastity devices are (essentially) all chastity cages, so implying sheath_chastity_cage (which would then imply chastity_cage) would be best
The last 2 instructions are optional, but ideal.
Blocked Instructions
Blocked final instruction of alias sheath_chastity -> sheath_chastity_cage; would be free after unalias sheath_chastity -> chastity_device executes.
Variant
I'm somewhat split on whether over_sheath_chastity_cage & in_sheath_chastity_cage should instead imply sheath_chastity instead of sheath_chastity_cage to keep in line with slit_chastity, as for non-human genitalia that would require unique chastity designs, sheath_chastity would align with slit_chastity. If this is preferred, replacing the last 4 instructions with
unalias sheath_chastity -> chastity_device imply sheath_chastity -> chastity_device imply over_sheath_chastity_cage -> sheath_chastity imply in_sheath_chastity_cage -> sheath_chastity
would achieve this, with a middle ground being changing imply sheath_chastity -> chastity_device to imply sheath_chastity -> chastity_cage, though that's less declarative of its relationships.
It appears this needs to be done in 2 BURS.
unimplicate sheath_cage -> chastity_cage unimplicate in-sheath_cage -> chastity_cage implicate sheath_chastity_cage -> chastity_cage implicate over_sheath_chastity_cage -> sheath_chastity_cage implicate in_sheath_chastity_cage -> sheath_chastity_cage unalias sheath_chastity -> chastity_device
alias sheath_cage -> over_sheath_chastity_cage alias in-sheath_cage -> in_sheath_chastity_cage alias sheath_chastity -> sheath_chastity_cage
OR
unimplicate sheath_cage -> chastity_cage unimplicate in-sheath_cage -> chastity_cage implicate sheath_chastity_cage -> chastity_cage implicate over_sheath_chastity_cage -> sheath_chastity_cage implicate in_sheath_chastity_cage -> sheath_chastity_cage
alias sheath_cage -> over_sheath_chastity_cage alias in-sheath_cage -> in_sheath_chastity_cage
Updated