Implicating hair_covering_breasts → hair
Link to implication

Reason:

A character needs both hair and breasts to be visible in order to be tagged with hair_covering_breasts.

Tag Implications:
hair_covering_breasts -> hair
hair_covering_breasts -> breasts

+1 for both. They Seem appropriate.

+1 to the first, -1 to the second. There are images marked with hair_covering_breasts where the breasts are not at all visible, and merely implied to exist given the fact the the involved character is female.

Examples: post #1158143 post #768080
The characters with covered breasts in those images both appear flat-chested. Only two examples, sure, but it shows that there is precedent.

Azula_Arktandr said:
+1 to the first, -1 to the second. There are images marked with hair_covering_breasts where the breasts are not at all visible, and merely implied to exist given the fact the the involved character is female.

Examples: post #1158143 post #768080
The characters with covered breasts in those images both appear flat-chested. Only two examples, sure, but it shows that there is precedent.

I) Breasts don't need to be directly visible for tagging; if they are covered, however still noticeable, then they should be tagged as well.

II) If the breasts are completely unnoticeable, then they are basically nonexistent by TWYS. implying the existence of breasts by the mere fact of the character be a female isn't acceptable.

i.e. The posts you are referring to are mistagged.

O16 said:
I) Breasts don't need to be directly visible for tagging; if they are covered, however still noticeable, then they should be tagged as well.

II) If the breasts are completely unnoticeable, then they are basically nonexistent by TWYS. implying the existence of breasts by the mere fact of the character be a female isn't acceptable.

i.e. The posts you are referring to are mistagged.

Those "rules" apply to the breasts tag. While I do believe we should just have a hair_covering_chest tag, at present it's under debate if the second one is worth it or not.