Implicating one_leg_up → vertical_splits
Link to implication

Reason:

for a character to be doing vertical_splits one leg must be pointing upwards

If you reverse the implication to vertical_splits → one_leg_up, that would probably work better. There's probably instances of having a leg up that don't qualify as splits.

looked over the implication request, that's the way I meant to imply it (so that posts tagged as vertical_splits will also be auto-tagged as one_leg_up) but the request page and the way it works reads weird/confusing to me regardless

Clawstripe was right, it got implemented but it was backwards :(

Could someone fix this please? it should be that vertical_splits implies one_leg_up not the other way around

sneezer22 said:
Could someone fix this please? it should be that vertical_splits implies one_leg_up not the other way around

Hi there! Apologies, this was my mistake: I think maybe I approved the implication while doing mass tag implication and alias editing. The implication has been reversed, and I'm cleaning up the mistags as well.

This needs to be undone. A character can be sitting while they have one leg up, and thus not doing "Vertical splits."

Furrin_Gok said:
This needs to be undone. A character can be sitting while they have one leg up, and thus not doing "Vertical splits."

It's been undone, no worries. One leg up no longer applies vertical_splits, but vertical splits does imply one leg up.

I'm just doing tag cleanup, so in a little bit the tags should be cleaned up hopefully. For the moment some might be mistagged, but that will be dealt with asap.