Tag implications: crossed_legs_*

Tag implications:

• crossed legs (standing) -> standing
• crossed legs (lying) -> lying
• (crossed legs -> sitting is already done)

Reason:

One has to be "standing" to qualify for "crossed legs (standing)". Same thing for the "lying" and "sitting" versions.

Related thread:

• forum #38771 - about these and a number of "sitting" tags

standing:
Apply this tag when characters are standing relatively upright on either one leg, or both.

This condition is not always met on crossed_legs_(standing) posts.

S1eth said:
This condition is not always met on crossed_legs_(standing) posts.

Why?

S1eth said:
This condition is not always met on crossed_legs_(standing) posts.

Then, what about this?
post #1048904

Implication A ⇒ B ⇔ ¬B ⇒ ¬A

∀x crossed_legs_(standing)(x) → standing(x) ⇔
∀x ¬standing(x) → ¬crossed_legs_(standing)(x)

A single example is not proof, but a single counterexample is.
crossed_legs_(standing) bent_over

S1eth said:

A single example is not proof, but a single counterexample is.

standing bent_over serves as counterexample to the rule that "standing" characters have to be relatively upright.

As to the existence of that rule, I asked: "Why?"

It is intended to be used for the standing pose that isn't already covered by bent_over.

S1eth said:
It is intended to be used for the standing pose that isn't already covered by bent_over.

• Search A: bent_over standing chartags:1
• There are posts tagged standing where people are bent over. Therefore, its wiki that excludes "bent over" is being disobeyed to some extent.

(Why the exclusion exists, in the first place?)

• Search B: bent_over sitting chartags:1
• There are posts tagged bent_over where people are not standing. Therefore, "bent over" is not inherently a standing pose. Even the wiki acknowledges that by starting with "Legs (or at least thighs) vertical".

(standing bent_over is a basic search for people who are standing while bent over; sitting bent_over follows suit)