The tag implication #61015 skimpy_bikini -> bikini is pending approval.

Reason: All of those who wear a skimpy bikini wear a bikini.

macsionnaigh said:
Reason: All of those who wear a skimpy bikini wear a bikini.

Another implication request should be opened for:

create implication skimpy_bikini -> skimpy

I stumbled on this because the skimpy wiki mentions skimpy_bikini in the "See also" section.

And imply micro_bikini -> skimpy_bikini while we're at it.

I don't really understand how skimpy bikini doesn't cover this already?

nimphia said:
I don't really understand how skimpy bikini doesn't cover this already?

In theory at least, skimpy_bikini is to make up for posts where someone is wearing a skimpy outfit, and separately someone is wearing a bikini that is not skimpy.

Is there any meaningful difference between skimpy_bikini and micro_bikini?

spe said:
Is there any meaningful difference between skimpy_bikini and micro_bikini?

The way I see it a micro_bikini is the skimpiest possible skimpy_bikini.

So a bikini with side_boob, under_boob, or full_cleavage but otherwise covering a significant portion of the breasts would be skimpy but not quite a micro_bikini. While something that is giving areola_slip or would reasonably be expected to if the particular character's areola weren't so small/forgotten by the artist, such that a big sneeze may lead to a wardrobe_malfunction then that would be a micro_bikini. On the bottom half, exposing some cheek would be skimpy, but a micro_bikini would be a bikini_thong with a front part narrow enough or low enough to expose some of the pubic area.

For example post #4989835 sits comfortably in skimpy without quite crossing into micro.