This doesn't fit. abdominal_bulge implies bulge, but bulge tags underwear bulges, and is an alias for underwear_bulge.

It's weird that implication got accepted. I thought the discussion about it agreed it wasn't a good plan, and even the original poster was against it after a short discussion. Maybe I'm remembering the wrong thing.

ETA: I found the discussion. Everyone was against it. I wonder how it happened anyways? That's just bizarre.

In any case I think abdominal_bulge should be UNimplicated --/---> bulge. That's a hell of a tag mess now.

I thought this one through and didn't know it also implied underwear_bulge, which I don't agree with

I think underwear bulge should be a separate tag and not aliased and this implication kept, but I'll go and delete it now

This is why I made the new tracking forum to keep track of the discussions

Rainbow_Dash said:
[stuff]

Oh ok, that does make sense. It even follows precedence of how many other tags have an umbrella general tag, and the more specific tags underneath it, implicating back to it. Even in the thread, no one caught the previous alias, just the way it was being used was too specific for this implication to work. Idk, maybe underwear_bulge needs to be UN-aliased and made into an implication from bulge instead? Not trying to make more work, just trying to consider all of the options.

ETA: ok, that makes sense to me.

I just left bulge separate to refer to underwear bulge and left abdominal bulge separate as well