imply newhalf_with_x -> futa_with_x

BUR #10745 has been approved by @evazion.

create implication newhalf_with_female -> futa_with_female
create implication newhalf_with_male -> futa_with_male
create implication newhalf_with_newhalf -> futa_with_futa
create implication futa_with_newhalf -> futa_with_futa

Newhalf implies futa so these should also.

I disagree mainly with the third implication which may confuse things, as there is newhalf with newhalf, futa with futa and futa with newhalf.

mongirlfan said:

I disagree mainly with the third implication which may confuse things, as there is newhalf with newhalf, futa with futa and futa with newhalf.

You will still be able to search for newhalf with newhalf and futa with newhalf so I don't see the issue. Though I guess futa with newhalf should also imply futa with futa. I didn't see it because I assumed it would be newhalf_with_futa, because that's how the rest of the tags are structured...

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

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

The bulk update request #10745 (forum #214653) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

What exactly is this issue with this then...? If we're already tagging newhalf as futa then it's stupid to not have these implications.

The bulk update request #10745 (forum #214653) has been approved by @evazion.