The bulk update request #10852 is pending approval.

create implication two_doms_one_sub (2279) -> multiple_doms_one_sub (479)
create implication two_subs_one_dom (1374) -> multiple_subs_one_dom (137)
create implication two_doms_one_sub (2279) -> threesome (63794)
create implication two_subs_one_dom (1374) -> threesome (63794)
create implication multiple_doms_one_sub (479) -> dominant (170279)
create implication multiple_doms_one_sub (479) -> submissive (152787)
create implication multiple_subs_one_dom (137) -> dominant (170279)
create implication multiple_subs_one_dom (137) -> submissive (152787)

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 (2279) -> threesome (63794)
create implication two_doms_one_sub (2279) -> dominant (170279)
create implication two_doms_one_sub (2279) -> submissive (152787)
create implication two_subs_one_dom (1374) -> threesome (63794)
create implication two_subs_one_dom (1374) -> dominant (170279)
create implication two_subs_one_dom (1374) -> submissive (152787)
create implication multiple_doms_one_sub (479) -> group_sex (113427)
create implication multiple_doms_one_sub (479) -> dominant (170279)
create implication multiple_doms_one_sub (479) -> submissive (152787)
create implication multiple_subs_one_dom (137) -> group_sex (113427)
create implication multiple_subs_one_dom (137) -> dominant (170279)
create implication multiple_subs_one_dom (137) -> submissive (152787)

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