Implicating glistening_skin → smooth_skin
Link to implication

Reason:

It follows logically that if a character has shiny (glistening) skin, their skin would also fit the definition for being smooth.

EDIT: The tag implication glistening_skin -> smooth_skin (forum #283943) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

couldn't a scalie character have both visible scales and shiny skin? or would that not apply?

WigglyWugy said:
It follows logically that if a character has shiny (glistening) skin, their skin would also fit the definition for being smooth.

It reeeeally doesn't, though. You can polish spikes and ridges until they shine.

Jacob said:
It reeeeally doesn't, though. You can polish spikes and ridges until they shine.

There are separate tags for those cases, namely the glistening and glistening_body tags.

couldn't a scalie character have both visible scales and shiny skin? or would that not apply?

The smooth_skin tag does not imply the complete absence of scales and such, only the presence of smooth skin, so it would apply to that character.

WigglyWugy said:
The smooth_skin tag does not imply the complete absence of scales and such

The smooth_skin tag wiki, word for word:

Describes a character having smooth hairless skin, similar to a human or dolphin and opposed to fur, scales, or other rough texture.

Jacob said:
The smooth_skin tag wiki, word for word:

Describes a character having smooth hairless skin, similar to a human or dolphin and opposed to fur, scales, or other rough texture.

I actually literally wrote that a few days ago as there was no entry prior. With that phrasing I meant to describe what smooth skin meant, not imply that a character can't also possess scales or spikes on parts of their body.

-1. Rough, wet/slimy skin can be glistening and not smooth, so this implication would mis-tag posts of such.

The tag implication glistening_skin -> smooth_skin (forum #283943) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.