The bulk update request #1927 is active.

create implication child_swap (100) -> relative_swap (142)
create implication sibling_swap (58) -> relative_swap (142)
create implication son_swap (73) -> child_swap (100)
create implication daughter_swap (22) -> child_swap (100)
create implication brother_swap (6) -> sibling_swap (58)
create implication sister_swap (3) -> sibling_swap (58)

Reason: Implication tree based on similar existing standards. Sons and daughters are children, brothers and sisters are siblings.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1927 (forum #325831) has been approved by @spe.

Should relative swapping as a whole imply partner_swap?

strikerman said:
Should relative swapping as a whole imply partner_swap?

I'm leaning towards no but don't mind either way

gattonero2001 said:
I'm leaning towards no but don't mind either way

thanks for the quick response

I don't know what I was expecting that tag to be but it wasn't that.

The bulk update request #1927 (forum #325831) has been approved by @spe.

strikerman said:
Should relative swapping as a whole imply partner_swap?

Is there a reason the tag is only for sexual activity? I know the wiki says it's for sex, but I don't see why it has to be. Couldn't the tag also apply when, for example, Parent A is out with Parent B's child flying a kite, and Parent B is out with Parent A's child at the beach?

watsit said:
Is there a reason the tag is only for sexual activity? I know the wiki says it's for sex, but I don't see why it has to be. Couldn't the tag also apply when, for example, Parent A is out with Parent B's child flying a kite, and Parent B is out with Parent A's child at the beach?

To add onto this, isn't the whole thing with parent/child or sibling relationships a matter of Lore tags? Those kinds of relationships can't be reliably determined by TWYS. I had a BUR collection in topic #41594 that would alias child_swap, son_swap, and daughter_swap to their respective lore tags, but this BUR blocked it by transitive relationship.