[REJECTED] Tag implication: front-tie_bikini -> bikini

create implication front-tie_bikini -> bikini

Link to implication

EDIT: The tag implication front-tie_bikini -> bikini has been rejected by @Type-kun.

-1
I think there are cases were only the bikini_top is visible (post #2824662).
And it seems that an impliation from bikini_top to bikini doesn't exist.

Well, I also want to mention that side-tie_bikini currently implies bikini.
So there are two ways to go:
1. Approve this request
2. Remove the impliation from side-tie_bikini to bikini.

The latter would result in tag gardening work in the side-tie_bikini topless search.

+1 to the second one

remove implication side-tie_bikini -> bikini

Link to request

Reason can be found above.

EDIT: This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 60 days.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1269 (forum #135005) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

Should we also stick to using colour_bikini_top/bottom and pattern_bikini_top/bottom tags when only either is visible? There are a bunch of tags for that but it has never really been any major discussion about this but since normal colour_bikini and pattern_bikini tag imply bikini, not doing that would be the opposite of what this thread is trying to do.

Unbreakable said:

Should we also stick to using colour_bikini_top/bottom and pattern_bikini_top/bottom tags when only either is visible? There are a bunch of tags for that but it has never really been any major discussion about this but since normal colour_bikini and pattern_bikini tag imply bikini, not doing that would be the opposite of what this thread is trying to do.

I'm fine with having these implication.
I would only use color_bikini_top in two cases:

1. When the bottom has a different color
2. When only the top is present.

Same goes with color_bikini_bottom.

color_bikini should imo only be used when both parts are visible and when both parts have the same color. So this implication should remain.
So to answer your question: In my opinion, we should.

Chiera said:

I'm fine with having these implication.
I would only use color_bikini_top in two cases:

1. When the bottom has a different color
2. When only the top is present.

Same goes with color_bikini_bottom.

color_bikini should imo only be used when both parts are visible and when both parts have the same color. So this implication should remain.
So to answer your question: In my opinion, we should.

This. This is how I use the color top/bottom tags.

CodeKyuubi said:

This. This is how I use the color top/bottom tags.

Then we're all on the same page.

So if the parts are different, how about tagging them multicolored_bikini...? Or how about a new tag like two-tone_bikini. The reason being, is that although the parts are different, it is still a bikini, hence it also needs to imply swimsuit.

Neither multicolored nor two-tone would be appropriate. There's a 1 post mismatched bikini tag which would be appropriate and is currently used for exactly this.

kuuderes_shadow said:

Neither multicolored nor two-tone would be appropriate. There's a 1 post mismatched bikini tag which would be appropriate and is currently used for exactly this.

I remember being really surprised when creating that tag that it didn't already exist, considering all the other mismatched_* tags. Sorry I never got around to populating it. There hasn't been a lot of of time for intensive tag gardening lately.

Mismatched works for me... I've got some recent uploads that fall into that category that I can start tagging.

The tag implication front-tie_bikini -> bikini has been rejected by @Type-kun.

This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 60 days.

The bulk update request #1269 (forum #135005) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

BUR #2903 has been approved by @evazion.

create implication front-tie_bikini -> bikini

The objection was made irrelevant by topic #16600.

EDIT: The bulk update request #2903 (forum #168346) has been approved by @evazion.

The bulk update request #2903 (forum #168346) has been approved by @evazion.