The bulk update request #10852 is pending approval.

create implication two_doms_one_sub (2246) -> multiple_doms_one_sub (493)
create implication two_subs_one_dom (1358) -> multiple_subs_one_dom (132)
create implication two_doms_one_sub (2246) -> threesome (62920)
create implication two_subs_one_dom (1358) -> threesome (62920)
create implication multiple_doms_one_sub (493) -> dominant (166739)
create implication multiple_doms_one_sub (493) -> submissive (149687)
create implication multiple_subs_one_dom (132) -> dominant (166739)
create implication multiple_subs_one_dom (132) -> submissive (149687)

Reason: Hopefully self-explanatory. The only issue I foresee is that multiple_*_one_* ought to imply group, but that can't be done if two_*_one_* implies multiple_*_one_* without mistagging a lot of trio images as group.

If it is preferred to keep multiple_*_one_* separate, may I suggest changing the name to many_*_one_* to make it clearer that it's not a superset of two_*_one_*?

The bulk update request #10859 is pending approval.

create implication two_doms_one_sub (2246) -> threesome (62920)
create implication two_doms_one_sub (2246) -> dominant (166739)
create implication two_doms_one_sub (2246) -> submissive (149687)
create implication two_subs_one_dom (1358) -> threesome (62920)
create implication two_subs_one_dom (1358) -> dominant (166739)
create implication two_subs_one_dom (1358) -> submissive (149687)
create implication multiple_doms_one_sub (493) -> group_sex (111935)
create implication multiple_doms_one_sub (493) -> dominant (166739)
create implication multiple_doms_one_sub (493) -> submissive (149687)
create implication multiple_subs_one_dom (132) -> group_sex (111935)
create implication multiple_subs_one_dom (132) -> dominant (166739)
create implication multiple_subs_one_dom (132) -> submissive (149687)

Reason: Alternative for those who prefer multiple_*_one_* and two_*_one_* remain separate.