Danbooru

Tag implication: school_swimsuit -> one-piece_swimsuit

Posted under General

The wiki probably should make note that the tag refers to more of a specific style, and that even a two piece swimsuit could receive the tag if it is patterned and styled after the normal one-piece design.

Awhile ago I had gone through and cleaned it up, took awhile, but I just hadn't have the time to keep up on it. When I went through I tagged only images in which it was clearly a one-piece, and did not tag images where it wasn't a one-piece or the majority of it was concealed under clothing and couldn't truly identify if the outfit covered up to the chest area (best example where that is common is Miyafuji Yoshika).

A multi-piece_school_swimsuit tag would at least make them findable, though perhaps go with the same naming scheme as used with nontraditional_miko and call them nontraditional_school_swimsuit (or nonstandard_school_swimsuit)? That way it could include abnormal swimsuits styled and patterned after the standard type (Examples: post #339400 and post #244992). Should probably also be able to include those that look fairly normal but feature something abnormal, like separate bottom section (post #430122) or has been converted to a two-piece (post #533637).

jxh2154 said:

How odd, that implication (from the first post) is still in pending. I never approved it. I've just deleted the pending request, try again.

It's still broken. It looks like implication #3952's descendant_names wasn't updated when the pending implication was deleted. Not to mention that its descendant_names shouldn't have included a pending implication in the first place.

For now, deleting any directly involved implications and remaking them should hopefully work as a temporary workaround.

Updated

Toks said:

It's still broken. It looks like implication #3952's descendant_names wasn't updated when the pending implication was deleted. Not to mention that its descendant_names shouldn't have included a pending implication in the first place.

For now, deleting any directly involved implications and remaking them should hopefully work as a temporary workaround.

Not sure exactly what you mean but I did an implication search on school_swimsuit, deleted the three t had any part in, and resubmitted them. That what I needed to do?

jxh2154 said:

Not sure exactly what you mean but I did an implication search on school_swimsuit, deleted the three t had any part in, and resubmitted them. That what I needed to do?

Yes, that's right. Sorry for lack of clarity.

1