The bulk update request #10852 is pending approval.

create implication two_doms_one_sub (2172) -> multiple_doms_one_sub (436)
create implication two_subs_one_dom (1335) -> multiple_subs_one_dom (130)
create implication two_doms_one_sub (2172) -> threesome (61611)
create implication two_subs_one_dom (1335) -> threesome (61611)
create implication multiple_doms_one_sub (436) -> dominant (160789)
create implication multiple_doms_one_sub (436) -> submissive (143954)
create implication multiple_subs_one_dom (130) -> dominant (160789)
create implication multiple_subs_one_dom (130) -> submissive (143954)

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 (2172) -> threesome (61611)
create implication two_doms_one_sub (2172) -> dominant (160789)
create implication two_doms_one_sub (2172) -> submissive (143954)
create implication two_subs_one_dom (1335) -> threesome (61611)
create implication two_subs_one_dom (1335) -> dominant (160789)
create implication two_subs_one_dom (1335) -> submissive (143954)
create implication multiple_doms_one_sub (436) -> group_sex (109581)
create implication multiple_doms_one_sub (436) -> dominant (160789)
create implication multiple_doms_one_sub (436) -> submissive (143954)
create implication multiple_subs_one_dom (130) -> group_sex (109581)
create implication multiple_subs_one_dom (130) -> dominant (160789)
create implication multiple_subs_one_dom (130) -> submissive (143954)

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