create implication standing_on_box -> box
EDIT: The tag implication standing_on_box -> box (forum #147505) has been rejected by @Hillside_Moose.
Updated by DanbooruBot
Posted under Tags
create implication standing_on_box -> box
EDIT: The tag implication standing_on_box -> box (forum #147505) has been rejected by @Hillside_Moose.
Updated by DanbooruBot
create implication on_box -> box
create implication standing_on_box -> on_box
create implication standing_on_box -> standing
remove implication sitting_on_box -> box
create implication sitting_on_box -> on_box
BrokenEagle98 said:
Too low of a tag count.
Tag count aside, let's take on_box into consideration too before we consider any implications. (that is, please don't imply standing_on_box -> box directly)
When BrokenEagle98's made that comment above, I believe the tag count for standing_on_box was 19 posts. I forgot how many posts was the bare minimum... Something like 50 posts or else the system shows a warning, right?
I attempted to help populate these box tags. Let me know if that's enough for these implications or if they need to be more populated more.
EDIT: This bulk update request is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.
EDIT: This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 60 days.
EDIT: The bulk update request #1701 (forum #147509) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.
Updated by DanbooruBot
I took the liberty of updating the standing on box posts to on box, standing on object (leaving out some that were jumping/dancing/running on the box). Should I do the same with sitting on box?
ion288 said:
I took the liberty of updating the standing on box posts to on box, standing on object (leaving out some that were jumping/dancing/running on the box). Should I do the same with sitting on box?
Yeah, I'm all for more generalized tags myself. I'd say go for it.
The tag implication standing_on_box -> box (forum #147505) has been rejected by @Hillside_Moose.
The bulk update request #1701 (forum #147509) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.