Topic: Implications of the "mostly_nude" tag

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

The bulk update request #5681 is pending approval.

create implication mostly_nude_ambiguous (60) -> mostly_nude (113521)
create implication mostly_nude_andromorph (51) -> mostly_nude (113521)
create implication mostly_nude_anthro (3227) -> mostly_nude (113521)
create implication mostly_nude_female (1821) -> mostly_nude (113521)
create implication mostly_nude_feral (41) -> mostly_nude (113521)
create implication mostly_nude_gynomorph (615) -> mostly_nude (113521)
create implication mostly_nude_herm (29) -> mostly_nude (113521)
create implication mostly_nude_human (140) -> mostly_nude (113521)
create implication mostly_nude_humanoid (203) -> mostly_nude (113521)
create implication mostly_nude_intersex (684) -> mostly_nude (113521)
create implication mostly_nude_male (1463) -> mostly_nude (113521)
create implication mostly_nude_maleherm (9) -> mostly_nude (113521)
create implication mostly_nude_taur (20) -> mostly_nude (113521)

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. mostly_nude_female does not imply mostly_nude). 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:

Updated

Hi, I recently made the same BUR for mostly nude at topic #43902
I added the implications for sex/forms and removed any implications you already added, but could you edit the intersex implications to the following? This way the intersex tags implicate their direct parent first.

implicate mostly_nude_andromorph -> mostly_nude_intersex
implicate mostly_nude_gynomorph -> mostly_nude_intersex
implicate mostly_nude_herm -> mostly_nude_intersex
implicate mostly_nude_maleherm -> mostly_nude_intersex
  • 1