The bulk update request #565 has been rejected.

create alias male_swimwear (3) -> swimwear (115897)
create implication male_swimwear_challenge (233) -> swimwear (115897)
create implication sport_swimsuit (604) -> swimwear (115897)
create alias two_piece_swimsuit (22) -> two-piece_swimsuit (77008)
create implication two-piece_swimsuit (77008) -> swimwear (115897)
create implication bikini (76916) -> two-piece_swimsuit (77008)
create implication tankini (119) -> two-piece_swimsuit (77008)
create implication high_cut_bikini (0) -> bikini (76916)
create implication open-back_swimsuit (512) -> one-piece_swimsuit (18751)
create implication frontal-mesh_swimsuit (17) -> one-piece_swimsuit (18751)
create implication school_swimsuit (920) -> one-piece_swimsuit (18751)
create implication sharkini (86) -> one-piece_swimsuit (18751)
create alias swimsuit_down (9) -> swimwear_down (331)
create implication swimwear_down (331) -> swimwear (115897)

BUR updated to reflect suggested changes

Reason: There were various swimwear tags in use which seem like they could use an alias/implication. There's many more tags involving swimwear that don't have aliases or implications, but these ones seem the most prominent or important right now that could use fixing up.

Although all the current posts tagged with male_swimwear and male_swimwear_challenge are swimming_trunks, I opted to alias/imply the two tags to just swimwear since male swimwear can also possibly mean a speedo.

EDIT: The bulk update request #565 (forum #302680) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

I appear to have forgotten one implication that may apply:
create implication male_swimwear_challenge -> topless

I do believe any post with a character not wearing anything on their upper body also needs this tag.

dedari said:
The bulk update request #565 has been rejected.

create alias male_swimwear (3) -> swimwear (115897)
create implication male_swimwear_challenge (233) -> swimwear (115897)
create implication sport_swimsuit (604) -> swimwear (115897)
create alias two_piece_swimsuit (22) -> two-piece_swimsuit (77008)
create implication two-piece_swimsuit (77008) -> swimwear (115897)
create implication bikini (76916) -> two-piece_swimsuit (77008)
create implication tankini (119) -> two-piece_swimsuit (77008)
create implication high_cut_bikini (0) -> bikini (76916)
create implication open-back_swimsuit (512) -> one-piece_swimsuit (18751)
create implication frontal-mesh_swimsuit (17) -> one-piece_swimsuit (18751)
create implication school_swimsuit (920) -> one-piece_swimsuit (18751)
create implication sharkini (86) -> one-piece_swimsuit (18751)
create alias swimsuit_down (9) -> swimwear_down (331)
create implication swimwear_down (331) -> swimwear (115897)

Reason: There were various swimwear tags in use which seem like they could use an alias/implication. There's many more tags involving swimwear that don't have aliases or implications, but these ones seem the most prominent or important right now that could use fixing up.

Although all the current posts tagged with male_swimwear and male_swimwear_challenge are swimming_trunks, I opted to alias/imply the two tags to just swimwear since male swimwear can also possibly mean a speedo.

A two piece swimsuit is not always a bikini. The wiki for swimwear even explicitly says that it includes tankinis. Instead alias two_piece_swimsuit to two-piece_swimsuit. Bikini and tankini should then implicate two-piece_swimsuit.

nekozuki said:
A two piece swimsuit is not always a bikini. The wiki for swimwear even explicitly says that it includes tankinis. Instead alias two_piece_swimsuit to two-piece_swimsuit. Bikini and tankini should then implicate two-piece_swimsuit.

While this is certainly more logical, the current top-level tag for two-piece swimwear appears to be bikini. Aside from high cut bikini and tankini, all the other tags nested under bikini in the swimwear wiki implicate bikini. The last two mentions don't have any implications at all for that matter. Further looking into the swimwear tags since you've mentioned it, school swimsuit and sharkini don't seem to imply one-piece swimsuit which should also be fixed I think.

Here's an updated bulk request format which should address this:
Edit: BUR updated to reflect this instead

Additionally, sling bikini implicates bikini, yet is described on its wiki page as a one-piece. Is this correct and should be left as is? Or should the implication be changed to one-piece, or also imply bikini?

Would the implications bikini -> two-piece_swimsuit and tankini -> two-piece_swimsuit still apply if only half the bikini/tankini is present in a post (such as a post with only a bikini_top present, or a post with only a bikini_bottom present)?

Overall, that's the only portion of the BUR I have questions about. The remainder of the BUR looks good.

Bumping this, noticed there are two separate tags for two_piece_swimsuit and two-piece_swimsuit.

d.d.m. said:
Would the implications bikini -> two-piece_swimsuit and tankini -> two-piece_swimsuit still apply if only half the bikini/tankini is present in a post (such as a post with only a bikini_top present, or a post with only a bikini_bottom present)?

Overall, that's the only portion of the BUR I have questions about. The remainder of the BUR looks good.

Yeah, a bikini would theoretically be a two-piece but you shouldn't get the two-piece tag if you only see half, so those parts need to go.

furrin_gok said:
Yeah, a bikini would theoretically be a two-piece but you shouldn't get the two-piece tag if you only see half, so those parts need to go.

I don’t think I agree with that. A single piece of a two-piece swimsuit is never meant to be used alone - even if only one part is visible, it’s still categorically part of a two-piece swimsuit. You can always assume that the other half exists somewhere. It does not magically become a one-piece swimsuit simply because one of the pieces is missing.

dedari said:

Additionally, sling bikini implicates bikini, yet is described on its wiki page as a one-piece. Is this correct and should be left as is? Or should the implication be changed to one-piece, or also imply bikini?

I think the implication should be removed. Despite the name, a sling bikini is not a true bikini, and is rather a very skimpy variant of the one-piece swimsuit, which it should imply instead.

scaliespe said:
I don’t think I agree with that. A single piece of a two-piece swimsuit is never meant to be used alone - even if only one part is visible, it’s still categorically part of a two-piece swimsuit. You can always assume that the other half exists somewhere. It does not magically become a one-piece swimsuit simply because one of the pieces is missing.

Ah, the "is it nude or just topless?" dilemma when you can only see the unclothed top half of a character in a comic panel. TWYS sucks for dealing with situations like this, and as far as I'm aware there's no official ruling.

wat8548 said:
Ah, the "is it nude or just topless?" dilemma when you can only see the unclothed top half of a character in a comic panel. TWYS sucks for dealing with situations like this, and as far as I'm aware there's no official ruling.

I’ve been told by staff to tag characters in that situation as nude, though this is a bit of a different situation as I’m arguing that even a full portrait of a character wearing only a bikini top still counts as a two-piece swimsuit. It’s a two-piece swimsuit with one piece removed, not a one-piece that only covers the top (because, outside of porn, what would be the point of such a garment?)

Bumping this because of topic #33708

furrin_gok said:
post #1612623 post #658626
Does it really have to be one-piece to count?
post #3116885 post #747489
A lot of images even look like it's a lower piece to cover the crotch, and an upper piece that covers the entire torso and a bit of the hip for a little overlap--which seems to be what those first two would do if the top weren't just a few inches short (or the zangoose weren't so chubby).

Not sure the school swimsuit -> one-piece swimsuit should go through.

furrin_gok said:
Bumping this because of topic #33708
Not sure the school swimsuit -> one-piece swimsuit should go through.

Those examples look more like a tankini.
I’ve never heard the term “school swimsuit” before, but if it can be either one-piece or two-piece, it shouldn’t imply anything besides swimsuit and let taggers manually tag them as one or the other.

The bulk update request #8632 is active.

create alias male_swimwear (3) -> swimwear (115897)
create implication male_swimwear_challenge (233) -> swimwear (115897)
create implication sport_swimsuit (604) -> swimwear (115897)
create alias two_piece_swimsuit (22) -> two-piece_swimsuit (77008)
create implication two-piece_swimsuit (77008) -> swimwear (115897)
create implication bikini (76916) -> two-piece_swimsuit (77008)
create implication tankini (119) -> two-piece_swimsuit (77008)
create implication high_cut_bikini (0) -> bikini (76916)
create implication open-back_swimsuit (512) -> one-piece_swimsuit (18751)
create implication frontal-mesh_swimsuit (17) -> one-piece_swimsuit (18751)
create implication sharkini (86) -> one-piece_swimsuit (18751)
create alias swimsuit_down (9) -> swimwear_down (331)
create implication swimwear_down (331) -> swimwear (115897)

Reason: OP doesn't seem to be active currently, so here's a version with the school_swimsuit line removed

EDIT: The bulk update request #8632 (forum #409041) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

EDIT: The bulk update request #8632 (forum #409041) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #8632 (forum #409041) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #8632 (forum #409041) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #565 (forum #302680) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.