Implication for bike shorts

BUR #48276 has been approved by @evazion.

create implication bike_shorts_under_skirt -> bike_shorts

Noticed this implication doesn't exist yet when adding these tags to a pic. The "...under shorts" implication exists, but "...under skirt" does not.

Surely something will happen with these tags after the nth time attempting to BUR them.

https://danbooru.donmai.us/bulk_update_requests?search[tags_include_any]=bike_shorts_under_skirt

BUR #49232 has been rejected.

deprecate bike_shorts_under_skirt
mass update bike_shorts_under_skirt bike_shorts ~skirt ~dress -> -bike_shorts_under_skirt favgroup:34159

From the previous topic:

AngryZapdos said:

BUR #29153 has been rejected.

deprecate bike_shorts_under_skirt
mass update bike_shorts_under_skirt -> -bike_shorts_under_skirt bike_shorts skirt favgroup:34159

Personally, I think it should be nuked. It's nothing more than a tandem tag, entirely replaceable with a two-tag bike_shorts skirt search. I went through the most recent 100 posts in said search, and I could count the number of false positives on one hand. That search, by the way, contains over 15,000 posts, while bike_shorts_under_skirt doesn't even break 5k - someone would need to add it to ten thousand posts in order for this tag to do anything other than pad those posts' tag count, and even then its only other function would be to replicate bike_shorts skirt.

What would actually make sense would be a bike_shorts_only tag, for when bike shorts are worn as shorts themselves. We have tens of thousands of posts where bike shorts are worn under skirts, dresses, and actual shorts, which means anyone trying to search for this has to search for something like bike_shorts -skirt -dress -shorts. Except even this doesn't work because some users tag bike shorts with color_shorts tags, meaning there's a decent chunk of applicable posts being filtered out because the color_shorts tags imply shorts.

Unbreakable said:

I don't mind getting rid of the tag, but wouldn't it be better to move the posts over to shorts under skirt?

AngryZapdos said:

That's an entirely seperate discussion; I'd prefer it not derail this thread like it has numerous others. Nevertheless, I've updated the BUR to add all the current bike_shorts_under_skirt posts to favgroup #34159 - if we ever do figure out the answer to that age-old question, then shorts_under_skirt can easily be mass added to every post in that favgroup should we end up leaning towards "yes".

My opinion remains unchanged; we do not need this tag.

If only short leggings had been approved, forum #374449, then we could just banish them to leggings under skirt.

This will add skirt to a bunch of dress posts, right?

Spatula22 said:

This will add skirt to a bunch of dress posts, right?

@Spatula22 I suppose that's my fault for not checking the wiki and assuming a tag with "skirt" in the name was like 99% of our other skirt tags, ie. only for skirts. Silly me.

I've updated the BUR so that it doesn't add skirt to posts, and only removes bike_shorts_under_skirt from posts that are already tagged with both bike_shorts and either dress or skirt.

This bulk update request is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

Every time this gets bogged down over the question of whether bike shorts are shorts or not. I'm going to say no, they're like buruma in that they form their own category somewhere in between shorts and underwear.

The bulk update request #48276 (forum #389311) has been approved by @evazion.

This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 45 days.

The bulk update request #49232 (forum #392931) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.