Implicating under_covers → bedding
Link to implication

Reason:

Being under covers requires some form of bedding.

EDIT: The tag implication under_covers -> bedding (forum #229160) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.

I did a little bit of research and I stumbled on post #1155507 which is tagged with under_covers, but without showing a bed. Currently, under_covers A→ in_bed and under_covers I→ on_bed, which I question, since a bed is not the only thing you can sleep on or lie under a blanket on.

I also found blanket I→ bedding, which is not a problem by itself, but the bedding description says it required a bed to be present, which, as I mentioned above, doesn't need to be the case. There's no implication either, so that just needs to be edited out.

Overall, +1, but I think that also the under_covers A→ in_bed and under_covers I→ on_bed need to be removed.

I know that this is not all entirely related, but I thought it might help lend some nuance to the issue.

JAKXXX3 said:
Implicating under_covers → bedding
Link to implication

Reason:

Being under covers requires some form of bedding.

-1

what if a character is sleeping on the floor, coach or another character, they may be under covers but not actually on any bedding to speak of.

In the same token im against the alias as being under covers does not require a bed.

Ruku said:

what if a character is sleeping on the floor, coach or another character, they may be under covers but not actually on any bedding to speak of.

To me, bedding doesn't imply the actual furniture. When I use the word it refers to things like sheets, pillows or blankets.

Kemono-Kay said:
To me, bedding doesn't imply the actual furniture. When I use the word it refers to things like sheets, pillows or blankets.

mattress and pillows are the only thing i consider bedding thru.

if this was a drawing of anthros instead of a photo of humans, does it make sence having this tagged with bedding just because there are blankets?
https://cdn-img.pressreader.com/pressdisplay/docserver/getimage.aspx?regionKey=pNQ1k4dL%2Bbvz73rlICv0jA%3D%3D&scale=100

Blankets i dont consider bedding because they have any number of uses that are completly unrelated to what we commonly view/find under bedding

I've always considered bedding to refer to a wrapped sheet under a regular sheet or some combination of the two, and no other part of the bed. You can still have a mattress with only a blanket, which makes it possible to be under the covers on a bed with no bedding.

Ruku said:
-1

what if a character is sleeping on the floor, coach or another character, they may be under covers but not actually on any bedding to speak of.

In the same token im against the alias as being under covers does not require a bed.

under_covers is already implicated to on_bed and has in_bed aliased to it. The way the tag is now already implies that the character in question is on a bed.

JAKXXX3 said:
under_covers is already implicated to on_bed and has in_bed aliased to it. The way the tag is now already implies that the character in question is on a bed.

a improper implication that is forced not tagged and should be removed, im suggesting for the removal of the alias as it is improper.

A improper implication that has perpetuated for months does not make that error right. other implications have also lasted for months or even years before being removed because they were found to be erroneous.

Ruku said:
a improper implication that is forced not tagged and should be removed, im suggesting for the removal of the alias as it is improper.

A improper implication that has perpetuated for months does not make that error right. other implications have also lasted for months or even years before being removed because they were found to be erroneous.

That could work, though the under_covers wiki should be updated to clarify things. It'd be nice for it to link to the related tags like on_bed and bedding.

Also, if in_bed is unaliased from under_covers then it should be re-aliased to on_bed. If you're in bed, then you have to be on a bed, right?

The tag implication under_covers -> bedding (forum #229160) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.