The bulk update request #5678 is pending approval.

create implication fully_clothed_ambiguous (22) -> fully_clothed (59303)
create implication fully_clothed_andromorph (0) -> fully_clothed (59303)
create implication fully_clothed_anthro (1429) -> fully_clothed (59303)
create implication fully_clothed_female (933) -> fully_clothed (59303)
create implication fully_clothed_feral (1) -> fully_clothed (59303)
create implication fully_clothed_gynomorph (4) -> fully_clothed (59303)
create implication fully_clothed_herm (0) -> fully_clothed (59303)
create implication fully_clothed_human (129) -> fully_clothed (59303)
create implication fully_clothed_humanoid (110) -> fully_clothed (59303)
create implication fully_clothed_intersex (2) -> fully_clothed (59303)
create implication fully_clothed_male (774) -> fully_clothed (59303)
create implication fully_clothed_maleherm (0) -> fully_clothed (59303)
create implication fully_clothed_taur (30) -> fully_clothed (59303)

Reason: In my tagging, I've noticed that some (if not all) of the [state of clothedness] (by) [character {gender}/{body type}] tags do not implicate the logical parent tags (ex. fully_clothed_female does not imply fully_clothed). Even if there are any preexisting implications, this should cover all bases by requesting ones for all variations at once.

Requesting seven bulk updates grouped by the parent tags, navigation for the topic posts of which below:

• topic #40835 — Implications of the "fully_clothed" tag ◀ (You are here)
• topic #40836 — Implications of the "clothed" tag
• topic #40837 — Implications of the "partially_clothed" tag
• topic #40840 — Remaining implications of the "topless" tag
• topic #40841 — Remaining implications of the "bottomless" tag
• topic #40838 — Implications of the "mostly_nude" tag
• topic #40839 — Implications of the "nude" tag

fully_clothed_gynomorph/andromorph/maleherm/herm should imply fully_clothed_intersex instead if we want to keep these tags.

Do we want fully_clothed_feral? Currently the only state of clothing we tag for ferals is clothed_feral. I guess it could be useful for distinguishing between having just one article of clothing and a fully dressed feral.

The bulk update request #8213 is pending approval.

Reason: Doing it right.

Update: Routing the implications through clothed_[gender/form] rather than [gender/form] directly

Gender/Form implication navigation:
R - Slocheze's BUR pending
S - My BUR pending
C - No further steps necessary

The bulk update request #8214 is pending approval.

create implication fully_clothed_feral (1) -> fully_clothed (59303)
create implication fully_clothed_feral (1) -> clothed_feral (7633)

Reason: Do we want to keep fully clothed feral?

snpthecat said:
Reason: Do we want to keep fully clothed feral?

If we do, it should imply clothed_feral rather than feral. Otherwise, be aliased to it.

Having an additional tag for 'fully' clothed ferals seems like an useful distinction.
Though it begs the question of what exactly counts as fully clothed for them, or taurs for that matter... Literal bottomwear? Just something that covers the rear? Not sure.

watsit said:
If we do, it should imply clothed_feral rather than feral. Otherwise, be aliased to it.

Wait, you make a great point. Time to update all the BURs