Tag Implication: breasts_outside -> breasts

Implicating breasts_outside -> breasts.

Reason: Need breasts to have them outside clothing.

I only found one possible exception. post #607313
I'm not sure if that one post is enough to throw the implication.

Those are small breasts, but I wouldn't tag that flat_chest, so I don't think it's an exception.

Is there a tag similar to breasts_outside for flat-chested girls?

Fred1515 said:
Is there a tag similar to breasts_outside for flat-chested girls?

I don't think so but it's possible that I just haven't come across a tag like it. I didn't do a thorough search for tag like what you're describing prior to suggesting this implication.

Why would we need to create an entirely new tag for flat chests? Okay, maybe some pedants will cry themselves to sleep since it's not worded 100% correct, but breasts_outside should cover the entire chest range, not just breasts and up.

Not if it's implicated, it doesn't, cause then we'll get breasts tags on flat_chest-tagged images. But I do think it should cover the whole spectrum so I'd say this implication is a bad idea.

Hillside_Moose said:
Why would we need to create an entirely new tag for flat chests? Okay, maybe some pedants will cry themselves to sleep since it's not worded 100% correct, but breasts_outside should cover the entire chest range, not just breasts and up.

I agree. I only asked because if such a tag already existed this implication would make more sense, though I guess even if there was a similar tag for flat-chested girls it'd probably be better to merge it with breasts_outside under a more correct alias so people could use it with either breasts or flat_chest to find the size they're looking for.

スラッシュ said:
Not if it's implicated, it doesn't, cause then we'll get breasts tags on flat_chest-tagged images. But I do think it should cover the whole spectrum so I'd say this implication is a bad idea.

Agreed with this. People can tag it manually, it's not like breasts is an obscure tag people aren't aware of..