Topic: [APPROVED] underwear_only implications

The bulk update request #1842 is active.

create implication diaper_only (5215) -> diaper (38046)
create implication briefs_only (3077) -> briefs (22454)
create implication briefs_only (3077) -> underwear_only (30619)
create implication briefs_only (3077) -> topless (160561)
create implication boxers_only (933) -> boxers_(clothing) (9119)
create implication boxers_only (933) -> underwear_only (30619)
create implication boxers_only (933) -> topless (160561)
create implication speedo_only (1428) -> speedo (12958)
create implication speedo_only (1428) -> topless (160561)
create implication jockstrap_only (3598) -> jockstrap (24042)
create implication jockstrap_only (3598) -> underwear_only (30619)
create implication jockstrap_only (3598) -> topless (160561)
create implication thong_only (1625) -> thong (45839)
create implication thong_only (1625) -> underwear_only (30619)
create implication thong_only (1625) -> topless (160561)
create alias bottomwear_only (0) -> topless (160561)

Reason: Follows the same format as panties_only.
alias bottomwear_only -> topless because there’s virtually no difference between the two, and all these bottomwear-only tags will imply topless instead.

EDIT: duplicate implication was created at https://e621.net/forum_topics/32563

EDIT: The bulk update request #1842 (forum #324609) has been approved by @gattonero2001.

scaliespe said:
The bulk update request #1842 is active.

create implication diaper_only (5215) -> diaper (38046)
create implication briefs_only (3077) -> briefs (22454)
create implication briefs_only (3077) -> underwear_only (30619)
create implication briefs_only (3077) -> topless (160561)
create implication boxers_only (933) -> boxers_(clothing) (9119)
create implication boxers_only (933) -> underwear_only (30619)
create implication boxers_only (933) -> topless (160561)
create implication speedo_only (1428) -> speedo (12958)
create implication speedo_only (1428) -> topless (160561)
create implication jockstrap_only (3598) -> jockstrap (24042)
create implication jockstrap_only (3598) -> underwear_only (30619)
create implication jockstrap_only (3598) -> topless (160561)
create implication thong_only (1625) -> thong (45839)
create implication thong_only (1625) -> underwear_only (30619)
create implication thong_only (1625) -> topless (160561)
create alias bottomwear_only (0) -> topless (160561)

Reason: Follows the same format as panties_only.
alias bottomwear_only -> topless because there’s virtually no difference between the two, and all these bottomwear-only tags will imply topless instead.

Nice to get some Wear-esentation now and again, Dood~!
◠‿◠)~★

The create implication diaper_only -> clothed line should be removed as it's redundant to create implication diaper_only -> topless.

Otherwise all looks good to me.

faucet said:
The create implication diaper_only -> clothed line should be removed as it's redundant to create implication diaper_only -> topless.

Otherwise all looks good to me.

Fixed.

That also reminds me that there was a request for diaper to imply underwear a while back, which would also mean that diaper_only should imply underwear_only. I think I left that out as that one hasn’t been approved yet either, but may need to be done in the future.

Please remove the duplicate requests from the BUR and link them in the description, it simplifies the approval process for the admins.

gattonero2001 said:
Please remove the duplicate requests from the BUR and link them in the description, it simplifies the approval process for the admins.

Huh. That implication request was actually created after I created this BUR, but I guess non-BUR requests don’t check for duplicates? Anyway, yeah, I’ll fix that…

scaliespe said:
Huh. That implication request was actually created after I created this BUR, but I guess non-BUR requests don’t check for duplicates? Anyway, yeah, I’ll fix that…

Nope, BURs aren't checked for conflicts/dups by later requests (BUR and non-BUR alike), though a BUR will warn about conficts/dups from non-BUR requests.

As nice as BURs can be, they are lacking. There's no forewarning to two BURs doing the same thing or conflicting things, and unlike BURs, non-BUR requests handle transitives (e.g. if A implies B, and you non-BUR request aliasing B to C, it will automatically update A to imply C when accepted, whereas a BUR will error/fail).

The bulk update request #1842 (forum #324609) has been approved by @gattonero2001.