Tag implication: full-face_blush -> blush

All types of blush should implicate blush.

nose_blush too, while we're on the topic.

edit: also an alias for full_face_blush -> full-face_blush.

Did
create implication glasses_blush -> blush
create implication full-face_blush -> blush
create implication spoken_blush -> blush
create implication ear_blush -> blush
create implication body_blush -> blush
create implication nose_blush -> blush

Argh, why did you implicate spoken_blush? We even decided against it eight months ago in forum #65404.

I'm against body_blush being implicated as well; it should be its own thing and not mixed in with facial blushes.

I'd have to agree on both accounts.

Also, what is glasses_blush? Searches don't bring up anything.

I removed it from post #265855, which was the only post tagged with it. I'm pretty sure it's a tag created from accidentally adding an underscore between glasses and blush, because I have no idea what the hell a "glasses blush" is supposed to be.

Hillside_Moose said: Argh, why did you implicate spoken_blush? We even decided against it eight months ago in forum #65404.

Because I don't have threads from 8 months ago on instant recall, I guess. Anyway, agreed on both.

Though only about 9 images in spoken_blush didn't also have real blush elsewhere in the image, so it wasn't very many to change.

Don't have time to go through the whole body blush tag, but seeing as how I only had to remove 1 in the first 5 pages, and even that maybe could have been left... I'd be surprised if there were more than 25 "mistagged" in the whole 900+, so eh.

jxh2154 said:
Because I don't have threads from 8 months ago on instant recall, I guess.

Ooh, saucy.

Seriously though, I don't expect you to memorize every single forum thread, but I didn't expect you to go through the tag list and implicate all the *_blush tags either. I would've definitely voiced my objections then.

Anyway, thanks for the fix.