Implicating featureless_arms → featureless_limbs
Link to implication

Reason:

It is a type of featureless limb.

Related implications:

• featureless_legs → featureless_limbs.

Related aliases:

• featureless_hands → featureless_arms.¹
• featureless_feet → featureless_legs.¹

¹ since featureless limbs already have uncharacterized extremities as their most basic feature, the feet and hands versions aren't more than redundant.

EDIT: The tag implication featureless_arms -> featureless_limbs (forum #236505) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.

featureless_limbs sounds like it could mean that all limbs that character has should be featureless. If that's the case then no implications to featureless_limbs should be made.

So, if it refers to all limbs, -1.

If it refers to any limb, +1

Kemono-Kay said:
featureless_limbs sounds like it could mean that all limbs that character has should be featureless. If that's the case then no implications to featureless_limbs should be made.

So, if it refers to all limbs, -1.

If it refers to any limb, +1

maybe make it "featureless limb", without the s, to fix this?

Kemono-Kay said:
featureless_limbs sounds like it could mean that all limbs that character has should be featureless. If that's the case then no implications to featureless_limbs should be made.

So, if it refers to all limbs, -1.

If it refers to any limb, +1

It refers to any limb.

facelessmess said:
maybe make it "featureless limb", without the s, to fix this?

We opt for plural tags when the thing in question is considerably more likely to appear in conjunct (socks, grapes, wings etc) and featureless limbs are pretty much included in this, since they tend to apper, at least, in pairs.

The tag implication featureless_arms -> featureless_limbs (forum #236505) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.