Topic: [REJECTED] Tag implication: shorts_only -> pants_only

Member

9 months ago

Reason: In this case, we're referring to a type of bottomwear, correct?

EDIT: The tag implication shorts_only -> pants_only (forum #389971) has been rejected by @slyroon.

Updated by auto moderator 9 months ago

Privileged

9 months ago

Shorts are separate from pants. It should implicate bottomwear_only.

Janitor

9 months ago

The tag implication shorts_only -> pants_only (forum #389971) has been rejected by @slyroon.

Over 18?