Implicating public_nudity → nude
Link to implication

Reason:

Public nudity obviously involves being nude

EDIT: The tag implication public_nudity -> nude (forum #266364) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.

Half of the posts shown on public_nudity page do not fit the description of the nude tag.
This implication is invalid.

public_nudity may involve partially_clothed characters.

If half the posts tagged public_nudity should not be tagged nude, that sounds like the posts' problem, not the tag's. Maybe people need to be taught about the public_exposure tag?

Currently, it seems most people expect this implication to exist. A cursory inspection of the front page suggests that many posts tagged public_nudity are not also tagged nude, even when that is clearly appropriate.

wat8548 said:
If half the posts tagged public_nudity should not be tagged nude, that sounds like the posts' problem, not the tag's.

This.

Would result in far too many mistags. Quick glance at the tag shows hundreds posts that don't count as nude, and the wiki speaks about 'uncovered genitals' instead of nudity.

Sort that out first, before even considering this alias.

It will take me a while to finish sorting the tag, but I can sort through public_nudity. I feel partially responsible for these mistags, since I forgot about the public_exposure tag and have previously added public_nudity erroneously to posts without a nude character. I can also write/edit the wikis for public_exposure/public_nudity to avoid potential mistagging in the future. I'll post here again once I've finished sorting through everything.

The tag implication public_nudity -> nude (forum #266364) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.