[bulk] Wet things

@albert: The bulk update request #644 has been approved.

2016-04-29T15:21:55-04:00

The bulk update request #644 has been approved.

@user_460797: Pretty long break since the request was made...

2016-04-29T10:17:00-04:00

Pretty long break since the request was made and my suggestion was to change the definition to include all liquid (here: mainly bodily fluids). If no one objects, I do that on the weekend.

@user_460797: > fossilnix said: > > What's the visual...

2016-04-06T17:06:18-04:00

fossilnix said:

What's the visual difference between being wet with water and "moist" with bodily fluid (other than semen)?

That would be just redifining the wiki page and break the old entry. I don't really think there is so much visual difference in those things, be it pussy juice or water, so just redfining would be appropriate.

@fossilnix: What's the visual difference between being wet...

2016-04-06T17:00:41-04:00

What's the visual difference between being wet with water and "moist" with bodily fluid (other than semen)?

@user_460797: What about creating the tag moist if they are...

2016-04-06T16:54:25-04:00

What about creating the tag moist if they are not wet because of water/sweat but because of bodily fluid? So this whole wet-things stuff can stay, and moist is a specifier.
Of course, the wiki entry need to be updated then.

@MyrMindservant: Most of those implications would not work...

2016-04-06T16:45:34-04:00

Most of those implications would not work currently because of the wet tag definition:
"Covered with water or a watery liquid that isn't cum or sweat. Not pussy juice either."

Panties, skirt and pantyhose are all frequently wet due to bodily fluids. Although, this is also applicable to closing in general and wet_clothes is already implicated to wet. So this whole situation looks like a mess.

Before deciding what to do with implication requests from the OP, we need to either redefine wet, or remove the wet_clothes -> wet implication.
Redefining wet to be more general seems to be easier and more intuitive. But then we won't have a tag for posts where characters/clothes are wet due to simple water. The question is, do we need it?

On a related note, I agree with what Hillside Moose said in topic #11961 and would support breaking the wet_swimsuit -> wet_clothes implication.

@user_460797: create implication wet_hair -> wet create...

2016-04-04T18:34:46-04:00

create implication wet_hair -> wet
create implication wet_panties -> wet_clothes
create implication wet_skirt -> wet_clothes
create implication wet_skirt -> skirt
create implication wet_pantyhose -> wet_clothes

Link to request

Was kinda surprised how inconsistent this tag ist.
Wet shirt, wet dress and wet swimsuit implicates wet clothes, but wet panties don't.

For wet hair: The wiki page states that if something is covered with water, it's wet -> Hair is included.

Also, I did only included tags that are more often used than 50 times (or is this rule for bulk-updates non-existent?)