Implicating g-string -> thong

Reason: G-string is a type of thong.

Done

Uh, I've just noticed that this implication wasn't a good idea, at least so far.

Thong is currently implicated to panties, but g-string tag can be used to describe lower part of thong_bikini. So this implication is adding panties and consequently underwear tags to posts where they are not present.

Alternatively, this problem can be solved by removing thong -> panties implication. This was also previously requested in forum #22780 but that thread died without any conclusion.

So we need to either:
1. Remove g-string -> thong implication. Plus, if this is possible, remove thong, panties and underwear tags that were added as a result of this implication.
or
2. Remove thong -> panties implication. Plus, if this is possible, remove panties and underwear (but not thong) tags that were added as a result of implication requested in this thread.

Personally I'm supporting the second option.

MyrMindservant said:

Plus, if this is possible, remove panties and underwear (but not thong) tags that were added as a result of implication requested in this thread.

Generated a list of posts this implication added panties or underwear to (at least when jxh initially added it, not accounting for posts that had the g-string tag added afterwards):

id:1394459,1393417,1347767,1343568,1343565,1343562,1343561,1296217,1292718,1253288,1172448,1166255,1127204,1113531,1112230,1108488,1076256,1062297,1061462,1054450,1052904,1045508,1016235,1007657,1007656,973084,966949,936414,924172,920198,915019,913320,901849,891635,890702,871146,853120,833144,822007,818235,798463,730290,715132,682474,681806,653286,518128,505178,498665,430063,415375,415075,408979,407984,383127,366137,353844,335408,329542,324438,261364,249085,247318,246331,220602,195154,164066,149506,137538,109643,106259,87839,87015,34499,17079,9852,8927 status:any

Toks said:
Generated a list of posts this implication added panties or underwear to (at least when jxh initially added it, not accounting for posts that had the g-string tag added afterwards):

That list is not very large, I think I can clean it up manually (which would be more accurate than mass removal) after this issue is resolved. Thanks.

G-string is a type of thong, so the implication in the OP is correct. The problem of swimsuits being tagged with panties and underwear was rooted in 'thong' implicating 'panties', which is wrong and had been described very well in forum #22780: thong can be underwear, swimsuit, fundoshi, or other fantasy clothes.

What the above means is that not only Toks' list, but ~3k posts under swimsuit underwear need a look over and clean-up as well.

The only thing I'm afraid of is that people might have been too used to only tagging thong panties with thong and not panties, since the implication convenience has been in place for so long. Nothing we can do about it. Hopefully the powerhouse taggers and uploaders read the forum + wiki. For now +1 for removing thong -> panties implication.

Sal.N said:

What the above means is that not only Toks' list, but ~3k posts under swimsuit underwear need a look over and clean-up as well.

How do we deal with fundoshi which is both underwear and swimwear? We could tag either or depending on context, or always tag underwear and add swimsuit when needed.

Context with uncertain tagged as underwear is probably the best way to handle fundoshi. fundoshi as swimsuits should be pretty rare, especially here.

Removed the thong -> panties implication.