The bulk update request #164 is active.

create implication open_vest (1559) -> open_topwear (32754)
create implication open_shirt (20715) -> open_topwear (32754)
create implication open_jacket (6878) -> open_topwear (32754)
create implication open_hoodie (1020) -> open_topwear (32754)
create implication open_coat (1012) -> open_topwear (32754)
create implication open_pants (6977) -> open_bottomwear (7782)
create implication open_topwear (32754) -> open_clothing (42199)
create implication open_bottomwear (7782) -> open_clothing (42199)
create implication open_robe (1253) -> open_clothing (42199)
create implication open_clothing (42199) -> clothed (1152182)
remove implication open_shirt (20715) -> clothed (1152182)

Reason:
imply all tags to their parent;
imply open_clothing to clothed as wearing the clothing is required
remove open_shirt -> clothed as it's now redundant to the above

edit: topic #27000 nice

EDIT: The bulk update request #164 (forum #294137) has been approved by @Millcore.

Otherwise good, but robes are full body instead of topwear.

Clothing can be open and not worn. If a wiki says otherwise, the wiki is inaccurate.

thevileone said:
Clothing can be open and not worn. If a wiki says otherwise, the wiki is inaccurate.

While technically correct, I don't believe that's the way we tag things. I don't think, for example, an unzipped hoodie on the floor should be tagged as open_hoodie.

genjar said:
Otherwise good, but robes are full body instead of topwear.

Now implicating open_clothing instead.

The wiki for open_clothing also seems to infer that the clothing is being worn.

All these implications look good to me. I'll also add a BUR for de-aliasing open_shorts -> open_pants and adding the associated implications for open_shorts.

The bulk update request #167 is active.

remove alias open_shorts (631) -> open_pants (6977)
create implication open_shorts (631) -> shorts (109574)

Reason: Since shorts are distinct from pants, open_shorts should be distinct from open_pants as well.

Edit:

• I couldn't create the implication for open_shorts -> open_bottomwear for some reason, so that implication could not be added to the BUR even though I wanted to add it.

EDIT: The bulk update request #167 (forum #294175) has been approved by @Millcore.

d.d.m. said:
Edit:

• I couldn't create the implication for open_shorts -> open_bottomwear for some reason, so that implication could not be added to the BUR even though I wanted to add it.

Yeah, BUR doesn't (currently) allow unaliasing and then realiasing/implicating the same tag in one go. Those need to be done sequentially.

The bulk update request #164 (forum #294137) has been approved by @Millcore.

Booping this since the open_shorts de-alias is still pending, and I'm not wanting this (and other BURs) to be forgotten since they are a part of preexisting forum topics.

The bulk update request #167 (forum #294175) has been approved by @Millcore.