The bulk update request #8760 is pending approval.

create implication undressing_self (907) -> undressing (40082)
create implication undressing_another (1750) -> undressing (40082)
create implication undressing_partner (768) -> undressing_another (1750)

Reason: it's kidda in the name

keysmasher123 said:
The bulk update request #8760 is pending approval.

create implication undressing_self (907) -> undressing (40082)
create implication undressing_another (1750) -> undressing (40082)
create implication undressing_partner (768) -> undressing_another (1750)

Reason: it's kidda in the name

Bump for discussion.

Should undressing_self be considered the default situation and aliased to undressing? You could still search for that with undressing -undressing_another assuming everything is tagged adequately.

spe said:
Bump for discussion.

Should undressing_self be considered the default situation and aliased to undressing? You could still search for that with undressing -undressing_another assuming everything is tagged adequately.

Ideally, undressing should be the umbrella tag with _self and _another implying it, but as it is now, with undressing self undertagged (and likely to be undertagged in the future), I wouldn't object to aliasing them together

snpthecat said:
Ideally, undressing should be the umbrella tag with _self and _another implying it, but as it is now, with undressing self undertagged (and likely to be undertagged in the future), I wouldn't object to aliasing them together

I'm not necessarily opposed to populating undressing_self instead. Just the question is, will anyone actually do it? Situations that are the expected default of another situation have a bad track record of actually being tagged.

spe said:

Just the question is, will anyone actually do it?

I have a strong suspicion that it likely won't be (at least relative to just undressing) even after it's been populated