The tag alias #62746 flat_breasts -> flat_chested has been rejected.

Reason: same thing different name. This tag also seems to accompany tags that should NOT have been tagged either in the first place, so cleanup is needed.

EDIT: The tag alias flat_breasts -> flat_chested (forum #367069) has been rejected by @Catt0s_0fTheNight.

There actually might be a reason to keep this tag, hold on::

Currently, flat_chested says that the character cannot have ANY breasts for it to apply (makes sense)
However, this is a problem for posts where a character has multiple different sized breasts, such as post #3295413.
post #3295413
In such a post, multi_breast applies, but there is no way to tag the flat_breasts.

In this case, perhaps flat_chested should imply flat_breasts

Related:
topic #38663 - nipple location
topic #33644 - discussed this alias
topic #25146 - general discussion

Yeah, it should be an implication.

catt0s_0fthenight said:
There actually might be a reason to keep this tag, hold on::

Currently, flat_chested says that the character cannot have ANY breasts for it to apply (makes sense)
However, this is a problem for posts where a character has multiple different sized breasts, such as post #3295413.
post #3295413
In such a post, multi_breast applies, but there is no way to tag the flat_breasts.

In this case, perhaps flat_chested should imply flat_breasts

IMO, this looks like a case of where both multi_breast and multi_teat applies (with the top 2 row being supernumerary_breasts/4_breasts while the bottom 2 row being teats/4_teats).
Not sure if multi_nipple/8_nipples is accurately being used here since the wiki seems to be showing conflicting examples (i.e., example for multi_nipple and example for multi_teat).
However, if they were more clear-cut like post #554113, then I would say we proceed with tagging the number of visible breasts (i.e., 1 pair) and the number of visible nipples seen (i.e., 6 nipples), without any need for a "flat breast" tag.

As for the argument for keeping flat_breasts alive, I feel that keeping it just for characters with multiple different sized breasts (or supernumerary_breasts) to be unnecessary.
Just tag the number of breasts and nipples seen, without worrying about the absence of breasts for certain rows of nipples.
In addition, I don't think implying it with flat_chested would be a good idea. I feel that flat_breasts sounds like an oxymoron and would be used interchangeably with flat_chested anyways.

The tag alias flat_breasts -> flat_chested (forum #367069) has been rejected by @Catt0s_0fTheNight.

thegreatwolfgang said:
IMO, this looks like a case of where both multi_breast and multi_teat applies (with the top 2 row being supernumerary_breasts/4_breasts while the bottom 2 row being teats/4_teats).
Not sure if multi_nipple/8_nipples is accurately being used here since the wiki seems to be showing conflicting examples (i.e., example for multi_nipple and example for multi_teat).

Honestly, the difference between nipples and teats gets confusing. Biologically, teats are nipples straight up, even the two on the chest that humans have. But the general usage of the term "teat", and the tag here, seems to generally relate to the nipples on the lower chest, belly, and crotch area that various non-human animals have, which overlaps heavily with multi_nipple. They're not always the same (you can have teats without being multi-nipple, and you can have multi-nipple without being teats), but the majority of the time, multi-nipple indicates the presence of teats. Multi-teat would always be multi-nipple though, I think.

thegreatwolfgang said:
In addition, I don't think implying it with flat_chested would be a good idea. I feel that flat_breasts sounds like an oxymoron and would be used interchangeably with flat_chested anyways.

I feel the same way. I don't think we should be tagging flat_breasts due to the presence of nipples not being on fatty protrusions, which is a common way to depict anthros with extra nipples/teats. It depends on the intent of the artist to depict breasts that are flat, as opposed to just having extra nipples. A flat_breasts tag would be tagging what you don't see, and the only times I know of that we do that is in situations where you expect to see something but don't (e.g. no_underwear is only tagged when a character is wearing clothes that you'd expect to have with underwear, not for simply not having underwear in any context), which I don't think can ever be the case here in cases where it's not also flat_chested. An alias would be appropriate, IMO.

I think, if there are nipples but no clear breast in a non-chest location, you’d better just tag them as teats or something similar. If there is evidence of breasts, then it’s not flat - it would just be small_breasts. I think the white canid character used as an example above actually has small_breasts.

So yeah, +1 for the alias