The bulk update request #10852 is pending approval.

create implication two_doms_one_sub (2245) -> multiple_doms_one_sub (490)
create implication two_subs_one_dom (1352) -> multiple_subs_one_dom (132)
create implication two_doms_one_sub (2245) -> threesome (62802)
create implication two_subs_one_dom (1352) -> threesome (62802)
create implication multiple_doms_one_sub (490) -> dominant (166275)
create implication multiple_doms_one_sub (490) -> submissive (149179)
create implication multiple_subs_one_dom (132) -> dominant (166275)
create implication multiple_subs_one_dom (132) -> submissive (149179)

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 (2245) -> threesome (62802)
create implication two_doms_one_sub (2245) -> dominant (166275)
create implication two_doms_one_sub (2245) -> submissive (149179)
create implication two_subs_one_dom (1352) -> threesome (62802)
create implication two_subs_one_dom (1352) -> dominant (166275)
create implication two_subs_one_dom (1352) -> submissive (149179)
create implication multiple_doms_one_sub (490) -> group_sex (111707)
create implication multiple_doms_one_sub (490) -> dominant (166275)
create implication multiple_doms_one_sub (490) -> submissive (149179)
create implication multiple_subs_one_dom (132) -> group_sex (111707)
create implication multiple_subs_one_dom (132) -> dominant (166275)
create implication multiple_subs_one_dom (132) -> submissive (149179)

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