Tag Implications

@Background Pony #8679  
On that note: sonic screwdriver -> doctor who; tardis -> doctor who

all the numbered Final Fantasy tags should imply final fantasy

Why chubby implies fat? they aren’t the same thing.  
chubby is something like this  
 
Just a little more meat
 
FAT is this!  

@RIG  
…Because different people have different standards for subjective terms, and the sort of people inclined to pitch a drama fit over fat characters are also likely to fitpitch over chubby characters?

@TexasUberAlles  
Then they should filter chubby too.

@RIG  
Yes. Yes they should.  

@Background Pony #687B  
@Background Pony #687B  
@ice1517  
@Background Pony #9B86  
@Background Pony #9B86  
@VladimirMacHolzraum  
@Background Pony #1724  
@Background Pony #9B86  
@Kot Kompot  
@Zyr87  
@Background Pony #9B86  
@Background Pony #9B86  
@tvc  
@Background Pony #1724  
@Background Pony #CB06  
@Background Pony #CB06  
@Background Pony #408A  
@HeartLinda  
@tvc  
@Kot Kompot  
@TexasUberAlles
 
Done

@TexasUberAlles  
@Zyr87  
@Zyr87
 
All of these suggestions seem like they would be more appropriate as aliases instead of implications, mostly because they’re redundant and mean the exact same thing, and I foresee little demand for a distinction.  

@HeartLinda  
I’m not too inclined to agree with this one to be honest. The “logo” tags indicate the presence of the logo in a screenshot/fake screenshot, but do not necessarily mean the image is about The Hub/Discovery Family otherwise.
 
 
@Kot Kompot  
I have to disagree with (sloppy kissing-> questionable). It’s generally questionable at a minimum, but there’s enough tagged “explicit” to invalidate an implication.

@RIG
 
This is a safe thread, don’t post unspoiled pictures of people in their underwear.

@Joey  
Sorry, but what about chubby implying fat?

@RIG  
because it implies fat and because fat is not a type classification for people’s weight, it is the most general term used for it by nearly everyone that has any excess of fat on their body, even if only a little. For example, I have grown a tiny bit of a belly, so obviously, I’m implied to be fat. Maybe not a lot of fat, but I’m a little fat.
 
of course that’s not how it works and no one cares how much excess you have to categorize you by ‘a little’ and if it were for that, it’d be purged all together, but the more logical explanation here is not being able to fully purge it do its relevance with the rest of the world, the vast majority of users here included. It’s put in almost all related implications, so it must be there for accessibility’s sake, because it’s the most common term used when searching or even thinking about the subject matter.

@Joey  

 
I see. I just had come across this image and thought of such implication to hint people not to tag these things suggestive.
 
I noticed, you didn’t make some other implications I had suggested in that post:
 

 
May I ask you, why? Just to know for the future if my suggestions was wrong.
 
Oh, and I thought everyone agreed that sci twi should be aliased to human twilight, so it don’t need to imply anything…

disposal → post-vore, scat, death

Elsa should imply Frozen {movie}.

cadance’s bedtime stories -> bedtime story.

ball fondling -> balls fetish  
teabagging -> balls fetish

Given that “dusk shine” implies “twilight sparkle”, “prince dusk” should imply “princess twilight”.

||Princess Flurry Heart = offspring ||

@Background Pony #06EF  
Done. And I’m never doing implications while eating again.
 
 
@Dogman15  
Done.
 
@when she felt her wings unfold  
Done.
 
@Brokedownandmadeone  
Teabagging is done. I don’t really feel that “ball fondling” should imply “balls fetish” though, as the bulk of the images do not seem to focus on the balls, but instead focuses on something else, and the ball fondling is just a “little extra”. Not really something I’d consider fetishistic.
 
 
@Roxor  
Done. (People still use those tags?)
 
@FarewellDecency  
Sorry, but no. “Offspring” seems to be used almost exclusively for OC children of canon characters, not canonical offspring. Seam reason why the Cake twins don’t have that implication.
 
@Kot Kompot  
I probably missed them because I was doing like three months worth of requests in the span of an hour.
 
Though “twilight muffins → twilight sparkle costume” seems like two of the exact same tag AFICT.

@Blossomforth  
Oh, yeah. Been working my way through the Dusk Shine pics and tagging missed instances since yesterday afternoon.

@Blossomforth  

 
Sounds like an overly fetish-community-specific definition, and risks pulling in explicit+grimdark system tags to safe images. Any chance this could be reverted or bracketed: “disposal (fetish)” or whatever?

{primary MLP:EG characters never seen in MLP:FiM} → eqg

@Blossomforth  
I was doubting the validity of the implication, but I figured I’d give it a shot.

Dupe