The bulk update request #9643 is pending approval.

create implication slim_female (4346) -> slim (36362)
create implication slim_female (4346) -> female (2828183)
create implication skinny_female (1705) -> skinny (9196)
create implication skinny_female (1705) -> female (2828183)
create implication slim_male (7381) -> slim (36362)
create implication slim_male (7381) -> male (2812934)
create implication skinny_male (1646) -> skinny (9196)
create implication skinny_male (1646) -> male (2812934)
create implication slim_ambiguous (150) -> slim (36362)
create implication slim_ambiguous (150) -> ambiguous_gender (353949)
create implication skinny_ambiguous (27) -> skinny (9196)
create implication skinny_ambiguous (27) -> ambiguous_gender (353949)

Reason: I'm surprised this didn't exist already. (Will make more quickly.)

EDIT: I'll change all the ones I made on this thread if skinny and slim get aliased.

What is the difference between slim and skinny? I'm not seeing much.

regsmutt said:
What is the difference between slim and skinny? I'm not seeing much.

Well it seems that the difference is slim to none

The bulk update request #9644 is pending approval.

Reason: Intersex version of the above.

regsmutt said:
What is the difference between slim and skinny? I'm not seeing much.

Honestly I'm just keeping up with current standards. I don't know either

1eyed-rosd said:
Honestly I'm just keeping up with current standards. I don't know either

Perhaps they should be aliased together?

The bulk update request #9645 is pending approval.

create implication slim_anthro (8136) -> slim (36362)
create implication slim_anthro (8136) -> anthro (3754410)
create implication skinny_anthro (1501) -> skinny (9196)
create implication skinny_anthro (1501) -> anthro (3754410)
create implication slim_humanoid (855) -> slim (36362)
create implication slim_humanoid (855) -> humanoid (498752)
create implication skinny_humanoid (181) -> skinny (9196)
create implication skinny_humanoid (181) -> humanoid (498752)
create implication slim_human (427) -> slim (36362)
create implication slim_human (427) -> human (414538)
create implication skinny_human (66) -> skinny (9196)
create implication skinny_human (66) -> human (414538)
create implication slim_taur (15) -> slim (36362)
create implication slim_taur (15) -> taur (20739)
create implication skinny_taur (0) -> skinny (9196)
create implication skinny_taur (0) -> taur (20739)
create implication slim_feral (67) -> slim (36362)
create implication slim_feral (67) -> feral (676525)
create implication skinny_feral (11) -> skinny (9196)
create implication skinny_feral (11) -> feral (676525)

Reason: Species version of the above.

regsmutt said:
Perhaps they should be aliased together?

They probably should, but I'm not going to be the one to rock the boat. Someone more experienced can do that.

1eyed-rosd said:
They probably should, but I'm not going to be the one to rock the boat. Someone more experienced can do that.

slim has the aliases, one of which you've made for it, so aliasing towards t seems like a good idea.

The bulk update request #9646 is pending approval.

Reason: Emaciated version of the above.

The bulk update request #9647 is pending approval.

create implication emaciated_human (0) -> emaciated (600)
create implication emaciated_human (0) -> human (414538)

Reason: I had to cut at least one from the emaciated one. So I cut the human ones, and made them this one.

snpthecat said:
slim has the aliases, one of which you've made for it, so aliasing towards t seems like a good idea.

I might have to change half of what I made here, but that's a good idea.

Similar to the specifications of wide_hips referenced here topic #44287 and here topic #45538 , I also argue there should be no gender or bodyform specification for slim, emaciated and skinny. They should all be aliased to their parent tags(slim, emaciated, skinny).

Also there is some debate whether or not slim and skinny are meaningfully different, I personally do say there is a difference but it can be visually very slim(no pun intended).

I disagree. While I understand that we shouldn't have a tag for every combination of features a character/object for practical reasons, there is clearly demand to specify characters with a specific gender/figure combinations. As these are incredibly intertwined for specific appeal.

If you disagree, please make your own BURs. You can even put them in this thread if you want. (By putting the thread's ID (47227) in the "form topic" section.) I can't stop you.

ryu_deacon said:
Similar to the specifications of wide_hips referenced here topic #44287 and here topic #45538 , I also argue there should be no gender or bodyform specification for slim, emaciated and skinny. They should all be aliased to their parent tags(slim, emaciated, skinny).

Are you also arguing there should be no gender/form specification for slightly chubby, and the overweight tags/subtags?

snpthecat said:
Are you also arguing there should be no gender/form specification for slightly chubby, and the overweight tags/subtags?

I use and feel like the 'weight_gender' tags are rather useful. Also variants for skinnier than normal characters should be fine too.