bikini_under_clothes -> swimsuit_under_clothes

BUR #2919 has been rejected.

create implication bikini_under_clothes -> swimsuit_under_clothes

Seems self-explanatory. I was surprised this didn't already exist.

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 #2919 (forum #168468) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

This implication used to exist but was removed. It was originally added in topic #11084, but later removed in topic #12526 and rejected for being readded in topic #12572 and topic #15358.

Many swimsuit tags have an unwritten rule that they're for one-piece swimsuits only. See for example the color swimsuit tags. This is admittedly unintuitive and it causes a fair amount of mistagging (see swimsuit_under_clothes bikini_under_clothes).

I don't understand the reasons given against this implication in the previous threads

BrokenEagle98 said:

Do we want bikini to always implicate its swimsuit counterpart, which would necessitate creating implications for the above tags, or should the two be separate, and only the "bikini -> swimsuit" implication will remain?

EB said:

I have a strong preference for the latter. The base bikini->swimsuit implication is good because the latter is meant as a very generalized tag, but the rest are much more useful as separate tags IMO.

If tags aren't useful, they shouldn't exist, period. Implication is a moot point.

BrokenEagle98 said:

I have a strong preference for the latter as well. If I want to search for, let's say a polka dot swimsuit and not a polka dot bikini, with the prior scheme, I've got to sort through all of the posts which have either a polka dot swimsuit or a polka dot bikini, or both to find what I want.

polka_dot_swimsuit -bikini easy-peasy

This bulk update request is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

evazion said:

This implication used to exist but was removed. It was originally added in topic #11084, but later removed in topic #12526 and rejected for being readded in topic #12572 and topic #15358.

Many swimsuit tags have an unwritten rule that they're for one-piece swimsuits only. See for example the color swimsuit tags. This is admittedly unintuitive and it causes a fair amount of mistagging (see swimsuit_under_clothes bikini_under_clothes).

couldn't they be repurposed as one-piece_ tags, like one-piece_under_clothes? has that been discussed?

Since bikini already implies swimsuit I don't see why this (or an alias) can't work, as an example we only have adjusting swimsuit and no adjusting bikini tag.

I'd be fine with an adjusting bikini tag myself. They are two different visuals. Whereas the one-piece primarily only has the neck, arm, and leg holes to adjust, the bikini also has a waist and chest band to adjust, not to mention the possibility of many more straps.

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

The bulk update request #2919 (forum #168468) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.