The bulk update request #5684 is pending approval.

create implication bottomless_ambiguous (139) -> bottomless (170481)
create implication bottomless_anthro (16303) -> bottomless (170481) # duplicate of implication #42325
create implication bottomless_female (12897) -> bottomless (170481) # duplicate of implication #42324
create implication bottomless_feral (2) -> bottomless (170481)
create implication bottomless_herm (36) -> bottomless (170481)
create implication bottomless_human (771) -> bottomless (170481) # duplicate of implication #42326
create implication bottomless_humanoid (931) -> bottomless (170481) # duplicate of implication #42327
create implication bottomless_intersex (1332) -> bottomless (170481) # duplicate of implication #42330
create implication bottomless_male (16682) -> bottomless (170481) # duplicate of implication #42323
create implication bottomless_maleherm (10) -> bottomless (170481)
create implication bottomless_taur (158) -> bottomless (170481)

Reason: In my tagging, I've noticed that not all of the bottomeless_[character {gender}/{body type}] tags implicate the logical parent tag bottomless (ex. bottomless_anthro and bottomless_female do, but bottomless_ambiguous and bottomless_taur do not). This should cover the remainder (bottomless_ambiguous and bottomless_gynomorph gave me an error in the BUR, cause they're definitely covered).

Requesting seven bulk updates grouped by the parent tags, navigation for the topic posts of which below:

• topic #40835 — Implications of the "fully_clothed" tag
• topic #40836 — Implications of the "clothed" tag
• topic #40837 — Implications of the "partially_clothed" tag
• topic #40840 — Remaining implications of the "topless" tag
• topic #40841 — Remaining implications of the "bottomless" tag ◀ (You are here)
• topic #40838 — Implications of the "mostly_nude" tag
• topic #40839 — Implications of the "nude" tag

Any chance you could remove the ones that are already in effect?

strikerman said:
Any chance you could remove the ones that are already in effect?

The only implications in the BUR that are still applicable are the ambiguous, taur and feral ones. The bottomless_herm and bottomless_maleherm imply bottomless_intersex

The bulk update request #7217 is active.

create implication bottomless_taur (158) -> bottomless (170481)
create implication bottomless_ambiguous (139) -> bottomless (170481)
create implication bottomless_taur (158) -> taur (20272)
create alias bottomless_feral (2) -> feral (664905)
create implication bottomless_ambiguous (139) -> ambiguous_gender (344763)

Reason: The remaining useful implications + equipping them with the form/gender implication too
Edit: Aliasing bottomless_feral to feral

EDIT: The bulk update request #7217 (forum #397071) has been approved by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #7217 (forum #397071) has been approved by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #8225 is pending approval.

Reason: Rerouting the implications through clothed_[] rather than [] directly

This also brings the question of whether fully/partially_clothed/top/bottomless_feral should be aliased to clothed_feral rather than feral

Gender/Form implication navigation:
R - Slocheze's BUR pending
S - My BUR pending
C - No further steps necessary