[REJECTED] Tag implication: eyepatch_bikini -> bikini

create implication eyepatch_bikini -> bikini

Link to implication

Subset.

EDIT: The tag implication eyepatch_bikini -> bikini (forum #149064) has been rejected by @evazion.

Refer to both full bikinis and bikini_tops.

ion288 said:

Refer to both full bikinis and bikini_tops.

Are we gonna unimply tags like untied bikini, micro bikini, bikini aside and highleg bikini then?

If it refers to bikini tops, then it probably shouldn't. eyepatch_bikini_top should be used instead. In which case, the above implication makes sense.

Unbreakable said:

Are we gonna unimply tags like untied bikini, micro bikini, bikini aside and highleg bikini then?

I find examples of bikini bottom with all the examples above. So probably yes.

BrokenEagle98 said:

If it refers to bikini tops, then it probably shouldn't. eyepatch_bikini_top should be used instead. In which case, the above implication makes sense.

There arent really any eyepatch bikini bottoms though, sometimes its just the top and sometime its a bikini with a eyepatch bikini top. Having two tags for the same item seems weird to me.

The tag implication eyepatch_bikini -> bikini (forum #149064) has been rejected by @evazion.

I'll reject this because I see that past implications were rejected for the same reason (topic #14333). I don't really like the idea that bikini is for full bikinis only though. This rule isn't stated anywhere and is routinely ignored. See: bikini topless -bikini_bottom, bikini bottomless -bikini_top, bikini ~bikini_top ~bikini_bottom.

Following this rule means we need to unimply almost everything except color tags from bikini, plus make *_bikini_top and *_bikini_bottom tags for nearly every *_bikini tag, which fragments a lot of tags.