create implication shorts_under_skirt -> shorts

Link to implication

Seems fairly obvious

EDIT: The tag implication shorts_under_skirt -> shorts (forum #147283) has been approved by @Hillside_Moose.

Well, also skirt too, maybe also these kinds of implications should imply layered_clothing as well

Most of the images tagged shorts under skirt are actually bike shorts, which usually aren't tagged as shorts.

If we decide that bike shorts should implicate shorts, then this implication is fine as well; otherwise it's a -1 from me.

chinatsu said:

Well, also skirt too, maybe also these kinds of implications should imply layered_clothing as well

Skirt implication was rejected before at topic #13917, not sure if that still applies.

iridescent_slime said:

Most of the images tagged shorts under skirt are actually bike shorts, which usually aren't tagged as shorts.

If we decide that bike shorts should implicate shorts, then this implication is fine as well; otherwise it's a -1 from me.

They aren't? I always tag bike shorts with black shorts and short shorts since none of the wikis says you shouldn't.

Unbreakable said:

They aren't? I always tag bike shorts with black shorts and short shorts since none of the wikis says you shouldn't.

It's just an observation. Bike_shorts -shorts comprises roughly thrice as many posts as bike_shorts shorts.

iridescent_slime said:

It's just an observation. Bike_shorts -shorts comprises roughly thrice as many posts as bike_shorts shorts.

I hear you, I guess it's another one of those "individual users do what they think is correct"

Yeah, I thought bike shorts already implicated shorts. If it doesn't, it probably should. The colored shorts tags (which I always use for those) adds it anyways.

The tag implication shorts_under_skirt -> shorts (forum #147283) has been approved by @Hillside_Moose.

create implication bike_shorts -> shorts

Link to request

If this implication does not want to be made then the above one should not have been made either.

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

EDIT: The bulk update request #1687 (forum #147357) has been rejected by @Hillside_Moose.

Bike shorts are quite visually distinct from non-skintight shorts. I would prefer the tags says separate.

skylightcrystal said:

If this implication does not want to be made then the above one should not have been made either.

Alternatively, the bike_shorts_under_skirt alias can be removed and that tag repopulated.

EB said:

Bike shorts are quite visually distinct from non-skintight shorts. I would prefer the tags says separate.

I was actually thinking that if people really needed it, they could populate up a loose shorts tag. The same could be said for any other variations of shorts that people feel they might lose search precision on.

Besides that, I don't really see a con to the above implication.

Alternatively, the bike_shorts_under_skirt alias can be removed and that tag repopulated.

-1 Let's avoid fracturing the tags as much as possible... :/

BrokenEagle98 said:

-1 Let's avoid fracturing the tags as much as possible... :/

Frankly, giving it a look, I realize it would be too much effort to be worth populating. Even looking at shorts_under_skirt -bike_shorts, it seems the vast majority are skintight shorts anyway and just not completely tagged. It's rarer to see non-skintight shorts in the style of Misaka Mikoto. Something like post #1264051 is difficult to search for. Though in that case and most instances, just making sure bike shorts is tagged should suffice, I guess.

So if bike_shorts and shorts are supposed to be separate, how then are we to take the qualities of bike shorts? Should we add black_bike_shorts and short_bike_shorts?

Or to make it work, the implication of [color]_shorts to shorts and short_shorts could be removed so they can be tagged with bike_shorts. I think that's too much to ask for and would be a pain to deal with.

It makes much more sense to treat bike_shorts like a type of shorts. Like @BrokenEagle98, another tag like skintight_shorts could be added. And at that point I begin to question, why even call bike_shorts that instead of alias to such a proposed tag?

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

The bulk update request #1687 (forum #147357) has been rejected by @Hillside_Moose.

?

So should bike shorts images be tagged with shorts, in which case the second implication should have gone through, or not, in which case the first should not have gone through?