Implicating wardrobe_malfunction → clothing
Link to implication

Reason:

For a wardrobe malfunction to happen, clothing must be involved.

but what if the wardrobe malfunction happens for example with armor?

also somewhat related to my previous comment: should skimpy -> clothed implication be deleted since skimpy armors are a thing that exists? or should clothed -> clothing implication be deleted?

or should armor imply clothing?

or should armor have it's own skimpy_armor tag? if no, then skimpy_armor should be aliased to skimpy or armor

Mutisija said:
also somewhat related to my previous comment: should skimpy -> clothed implication be deleted since skimpy armors are a thing that exists? or should clothed -> clothing implication be deleted?

or should armor imply clothing?

or should armor have it's own skimpy_armor tag? if no, then skimpy_armor should be aliased to skimpy or armor

ought to imply clothing, I think.

Maxpizzle said:
armor ought to imply clothing, I think.

I'd honestly rather this than adding a whole new set of tags.

Mutisija said:
also somewhat related to my previous comment: should skimpy -> clothed implication be deleted since skimpy armors are a thing that exists? or should clothed -> clothing implication be deleted?

or should armor imply clothing?

or should armor have it's own skimpy_armor tag? if no, then skimpy_armor should be aliased to skimpy or armor

unconvincing_armor, actually.