[REJECTED] Tag implication: naked_babydoll -> babydoll

create implication naked_babydoll -> babydoll

Link to implication

an naked babydoll is an babydoll.

EDIT: The tag implication naked_babydoll -> babydoll (forum #142421) has been rejected by @Oniichanyan.

The tag implication naked_babydoll -> babydoll (forum #142421) has been rejected by @Oniichanyan.

Why do we even have a naked_babydoll tag?
Can't it be covered by babydoll + no panties?

keonas said:

Why do we even have a naked_babydoll tag?
Can't it be covered by babydoll + no panties?

Or babydoll + bottomless, either way I agree that it should be nuked.

keonas said:

Why do we even have a naked_babydoll tag?
Can't it be covered by babydoll + no panties?

I'm surprised it still exists, actually. For some reason I thought it was already obliterated after topic #14249. +1 for purging the pointless tag.

Killed the tag and replaced it with babydoll + bottomless as @Unbreakable suggested. No panties doesn't really fit as per the definition of bottomless.
Moved some posts over to the camisole tag.

Should it be made a not to use tag?

Either that or alias it to babydoll like naked thighhighs, naked boots and naked randoseru before it.