create implication thong_aside -> thong

Link to implication

Similar to the existing panties aside to panties implication.

EDIT: This tag implication has been rejected because it was not approved within 60 days.

EDIT: The tag implication thong_aside -> thong has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

It seems like there's a ton of unresolved ambiguity surrounding both thong and thong aside. We should probably discuss some of these problems before moving forward with any more implications involving these tags.

For instance, should thong aside be used for a thong bikini, and if so, should thong bikini imply thong as well?

Also, we can't seem to agree on whether thong should be regarded as a specific cut of panties or is a unique undergarment in its own right. A thong panties solo search currently produces 240 pages of results. For articles of clothing tagged both thong and panties, should we use thong aside, or panties aside? The existence of a thong panties tag only blurs the line between those tags further.

While we're at it, take a look at thong one-piece_thong solo and thong thong_leotard solo too. You'd think we wouldn't have to tell people that a leotard and a thong are two completely different items, but apparently that isn't the case.

EDIT: By the way, it's worth mentioning that thong once implicated panties. I'm afraid that the removal of that implication may have played a hand in the creation of this mess.

the thong and panties combination seems to be overwhelmingly a result of two things:
- noone cleaning up after the previous implication removal
- people tagging thongs with coloured panties tags
The first is easy to sort out, the second less so (the simplest solution would be to create coloured thong tags but there are some people who seem to object to the creation of such things, so...). Neither of these have any direct impact on this implication, though.

As for thong one-piece_thong solo and thong thong_leotard solo does anyone have any objections to simply removing the thong tag from these? It wouldn't take long. There are currently no tags with either of these things along with the thong aside, and with there being a leotard aside tag and a swimsuit aside tag this again shouldn't impact the implication.

Likewise, there is already a bikini aside tag, which is what I would think should be appropriate. Given that there were 30 images with bikini_aside thong_bikini and 7 images with thong_bikini thong_aside, and no visible difference between the groups, this seems to be the general consensus and I have moved the offenders over.

Also, this made me realise that thong bikini still says that the thong tag implicates panties...

kuuderes_shadow said:
(the simplest solution would be to create coloured thong tags but there are some people who seem to object to the creation of such things, so...).

If you are talking about neckwears, then no. Then you have misunderstood something there.
I don't know much about thongs (hence I don't really use that tag), but it seems that panties and thongs are two seperate things and you can't really find an umbrella term for them, right? That's different with neckwear tags, though. There you can simply look for specific items or a catchall term.
According to your reasoning, this doesn't seem possible to find an umbrella tag here :3.

thong one-piece_thong solo is no more.
thong thong_leotard solo has been reduced to a few images where it isn't obvious which they're wearing from the picture.

On second thoughts, I don't think the thong/panties overlap is a bad thing. The implication was removed because not all thongs are panties. Not because they should be kept separate at all times.

And the reasoning for the removal of the implication would suggest that, yes, thong bikini probably should implicate thong as well. The post originally proposing the removal of the thong -> panties implication even specifically said that a thong can be a swimsuit, in which case what else would it be but a thong bikini?

I've removed the line in the thong bikini wiki stating that thong implicates panties, when it hasn't for 4 years.

This line of logic would then suggest that thong aside should be used in conjunction with panties aside or bikini aside as appropriate.

Which I think resolves all the issues?

The only remaining issue I see is that if thong_bikini implicates thong, then thong is reduced to just a "style" of swimsuit bottoms / underwear. In this case, why is thong_bikini even a tag when we can just search for thong bikini? And why do we need thong_aside when we're going to tag panties_aside or bikini_aside anyway?

While there are uses for a retained thong bikini tag they're not much more significant than reasons for the creation of a hypothetical thong_panties tag.

The thong aside is more than just ~panties_aside ~bikini_aside thong, as it encompasses other thong garments - eg. fundoshi thong. Yes there's a fundoshi aside tag as well, but how many things do you need to stick into a search before a single, simple replacement tag becomes justified?

This tag implication has been rejected because it was not approved within 60 days.

The tag implication thong_aside -> thong has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.