The bulk update request #101 is active.
create implication male_on_bottom (57604) -> on_bottom (107292)
create implication male_on_bottom (57604) -> male (2774188)
create implication female_on_bottom (7773) -> on_bottom (107292)
create implication female_on_bottom (7773) -> female (2793977)
create implication ambiguous_on_bottom (495) -> on_bottom (107292)
create implication ambiguous_on_bottom (495) -> ambiguous_gender (348074)
create implication intersex_on_bottom (2059) -> on_bottom (107292)
create implication intersex_on_bottom (2059) -> intersex (273775)
create implication andromorph_on_bottom (125) -> intersex_on_bottom (2059)
create implication andromorph_on_bottom (125) -> andromorph (26791)
create implication gynomorph_on_bottom (1612) -> intersex_on_bottom (2059)
create implication gynomorph_on_bottom (1612) -> gynomorph (214533)
create implication herm_on_bottom (212) -> intersex_on_bottom (2059)
create implication herm_on_bottom (212) -> herm (29824)
create implication maleherm_on_bottom (58) -> intersex_on_bottom (2059)
create implication maleherm_on_bottom (58) -> maleherm (5015)
create implication cowgirl_position (52701) -> on_bottom (107292)
create implication reverse_cowgirl_position (21019) -> on_bottom (107292)
Reason: There is already a group of tags for on_top, but not for the on_bottom opposite.
Having both <gender>_on_top and <gender>_on_bottom will certainly improve searchability.
on_top and on_bottom themselves might not be directly helpfull, as they will always be both present. They might be replaced by only one tag, or be aliased to on_top_(disambiguation)/on_bottom_(disambiguation).
Thoughts ?
EDIT: The bulk update request #101 (forum #292606) has been approved by @Millcore.
Updated by auto moderator