create implication babydoll -> lingerie

Link to implication

(Or perhaps to negligee, which implies lingerie)

The wiki description explicitly mentions that the garment is a form of negligee, however it does not currently imply either of those tags. The lingerie wiki also lists babydoll as a type.

Actually, there are a large number of such garments that do not implicate lingerie or anything else. Is this simply an oversight or are the unimplicated for any specific reason?

qazmlpok said:

create implication babydoll -> lingerie

Link to implication

(Or perhaps to negligee, which implies lingerie)

The wiki description explicitly mentions that the garment is a form of negligee, however it does not currently imply either of those tags. The lingerie wiki also lists babydoll as a type.

It was requested before, but I think the admin overlooked it since it was at the very beginning of the post.

qazmlpok said:

Actually, there are a large number of such garments that do not implicate lingerie or anything else. Is this simply an oversight or are the unimplicated for any specific reason?

From this thread, sounds like chemise and camisole shouldn't implicate underwear because they're (quoting EB): "sometimes in non-underwear-themed images."

Now that lingerie implicates underwear the situation is even more muddy.

Yeah the lingerie thing is confusing, so I think manual tagging is better for now,.