The tag implication #66679 pussy_tape -> covered_pussy has been rejected.

Reason: A pussy being covered with tape (as stated in its definition) implies that the pussy is being covered.

EDIT: The tag implication pussy_tape -> covered_pussy (forum #440260) has been rejected by @spe.

Same thought I had on the pussy_outline implication. I can see the logic, but I'm not sure covered_pussy is a good tag. There's no wiki defining exactly what it means (how little coverage ceases to be "covered", should it be used in every situation where an assumed female character's crotch is in the picture but you can't see her genitals or only for characters where the hip region/crotch are exposed except the pussy, etc...)

The tag implication pussy_tape -> covered_pussy (forum #440260) has been rejected by @spe.

I suggest nuking covered pussy and aliasing it to covering pussy (or just plain invalidation)

kaworu said:
Same thought I had on the pussy_outline implication. I can see the logic, but I'm not sure covered_pussy is a good tag. There's no wiki defining exactly what it means (how little coverage ceases to be "covered", should it be used in every situation where an assumed female character's crotch is in the picture but you can't see her genitals or only for characters where the hip region/crotch are exposed except the pussy, etc...)

My idea would for it to be used exclusively in explicit or questionable images wherein the person would be directly presenting their pussy if it weren't being covered. I understand your issues with the ambiguity though. I've requested for it to be aliased to covering_pussy, and will try to come up with a tag that better fits what I described, but if the alias is rejected, I think the definition I gave would be the most useful (unless someone can come up with a better one of course).