Bangs: To Nuke or Not To Nuke

@chilled_sake: > Provence said: > > hair_between_eyes.Already...

2017-06-15T16:53:47-04:00

Provence said:

hair_between_eyes.

Already was tagged. The question is about length.

@user_509825: hair_between_eyes.

2017-06-15T16:27:27-04:00

hair_between_eyes.

@chilled_sake: Do we consider hair such as in post #2756935 to...

2017-06-15T16:26:20-04:00

Do we consider hair such as in post #2756935 to have bangs? If not, is there an appropriate tag? I was considering we could make long bangs but an alternative would be fine.

@chilled_sake: > Provence said: > > I have a question: Is...

2016-11-03T02:04:44-04:00

Provence said:

I have a question: Is hair between eyes and bangs mutually exclusive or are there some instances where both is applicable for the same character? Because if a character had their hair between their eyes, I didn't tag it with bangs...

It's been my impression that hair_between_eyes counts most of the time as bangs. If it's too long or not originating from top of forehead, no. I think though the tag could be split into a bangs type and a tag for a long strand or locks of hair between eyes. Probably not, but this would open up an implication to bangs.

Regarding earlier discussion I recant nuking no_bangs. We don't imply blue and yellow hair to hair; rather hair is assumed top be ubiquitous and the absence of hair is tagged using bald. No_bangs is the same such way I guess.

Also I was thinking hair slicked back could be used for tag gardening no_bangs (shy of an implication), but I wonder whether bangs should be for specifically female hair styles? Hair_slicked_back seems mainly used for men and boy's short hair with product applied. I endorse the discussed separate tag for slicked back hair with no product for pulled back hair that is either tied or magically stays in place.

@BrokenEagle98: My two red cents... Correct {hair_between_eyes...

2016-11-02T17:04:53-04:00

My two red cents...

Correct {hair_between_eyes -bangs}: post #2315341
Correct {hair_between_eyes -bangs}: post #2363427
Incorrect {hair_between_eyes -bangs}: post #2531921

So if the majority of the hair in the front ends close to the brow line, it also counts as bangs. If it's pulled back, or if long strands extend far below the brow line it does not count as bangs.

@user_460797: I have a question: Is hair between eyes and...

2016-11-02T16:41:38-04:00

I have a question: Is hair between eyes and bangs mutually exclusive or are there some instances where both is applicable for the same character? Because if a character had their hair between their eyes, I didn't tag it with bangs...

@BrokenEagle98: > iridescent_slime said: > > My understanding...

2016-09-23T12:25:31-04:00

iridescent_slime said:

My understanding of the phrase "slicked back" is that it exclusively refers to hairstyles that rely on styling products such as pomade or wax to achieve a particular sculpted look. Simply pulling your hair into a ponytail or bun isn't the same as slicking it back. Maybe it should be split into a separate hair pulled back tag?

Well, it would also probably help if that tag had a wiki page...

@fossilnix: We also have bangs-less pictures where the hair...

2016-09-23T12:20:14-04:00

We also have bangs-less pictures where the hair isn't slicked or pulled back, like post #2483109

@iridescent_slime: > BrokenEagle98 said: > > I've been using hair...

2016-09-23T12:18:13-04:00

BrokenEagle98 said:

I've been using hair slicked back for lack of bangs, and I also add the forehead tag if it's prominent...

My understanding of the phrase "slicked back" is that it exclusively refers to hairstyles that rely on styling products such as pomade or wax to achieve a particular sculpted look. Simply pulling your hair into a ponytail or bun isn't the same as slicking it back. Maybe it should be split into a separate hair pulled back tag?

@BrokenEagle98: I've been using hair slicked back for lack of...

2016-09-23T11:43:10-04:00

I've been using hair slicked back for lack of bangs, and I also add the forehead tag if it's prominent...

@fossilnix: > iridescent_slime said: > > Bangs, or the...

2016-09-23T11:38:07-04:00

iridescent_slime said:

Bangs, or the lack thereof, are a significant part of a person's hairstyle. We need to keep at least one tag that enables users to search for hair worn one way or the other.

I agree with this. I also think that bangs is the tag we should keep, because to me, no_bangs seems like another way of saying -bangs. It just needs massive amounts of cleanup, which we'd be doing anyway if we switched to no_bangs.

@iridescent_slime: > chodorov said: > > ...What you're proposing...

2016-09-23T11:33:39-04:00

chodorov said:

...

What you're proposing (purging both tags entirely) would make it impossible to distinguish between hairstyles where the hair in front is pulled back (post #2491362) and those where it hangs over the forehead (post #2490509). This is unacceptable. Bangs, or the lack thereof, are a significant part of a person's hairstyle. We need to keep at least one tag that enables users to search for hair worn one way or the other.

@chilled_sake: > @iridescent_slime said: > > The bangs tag...

2016-09-23T06:43:56-04:00

@iridescent_slime said:

The bangs tag would be slightly more useful if it were tagged consistently instead of being scattered about as it is now. If it were applied to all the posts that meet its definition, it would probably eclipse breasts in number of posts.

The biggest strike against tagging bangs is their sheer ubiquity on Danbooru. I don't wear bangs and nor do any of my girlfriends, but anime artists are so fixated on bangs that it seems like there's a law against depicting exposed female foreheads. Given that hairstyles with bangs seem to be the norm here rather than the exception, it makes more sense to assume that characters wear bangs by default and tag the ones that don't.

The no bangs tag is presently neglected and stands at 33 posts. If it were properly populated and had a wiki, I'd support eliminating bangs.

What exactly is no_bangs meant to capture and why is it necessary at all? No bangs doesn't seem like no panties or other such "no x" tags, nothing has to have bangs. I could see maybe no_bangs + bob_cut but that would just water down bob cuts.

Two nukes, one for bangs, the other for no_bangs. And maybe some napalming for the bangs types tags since it isn't clear cut when each applies, they need some reform or better definition.

@iridescent_slime: > BrokenEagle98 said: > > I guess the main...

2016-09-11T03:53:03-04:00

BrokenEagle98 said:

I guess the main question is, is bangs a useful tag? Would removing it cause any tag search difficulties?

I'm sort of leaning towards getting rid of it, but that's just because I can't think of a situation where it would be useful, not that such a situation doesn't exist.

The bangs tag would be slightly more useful if it were tagged consistently instead of being scattered about as it is now. If it were applied to all the posts that meet its definition, it would probably eclipse breasts in number of posts.

The biggest strike against tagging bangs is their sheer ubiquity on Danbooru. I don't wear bangs and nor do any of my girlfriends, but anime artists are so fixated on bangs that it seems like there's a law against depicting exposed female foreheads. Given that hairstyles with bangs seem to be the norm here rather than the exception, it makes more sense to assume that characters wear bangs by default and tag the ones that don't.

The no bangs tag is presently neglected and stands at 33 posts. If it were properly populated and had a wiki, I'd support eliminating bangs.

@chilled_sake: As it currently exists to specify that bangs...

2016-09-06T22:34:22-04:00

As it currently exists to specify that bangs are present, bangs is useless and tautological to saying that a subject has hair which falls down the sides of the head. That style of hair is the norm hear and nearly ubiquitous. Exceptions would be mohawk or a shaved head and such hair styles are not expected to have bangs.

The only usefulness I may see for having a tag related to the mere presence of bangs would be to indicate that bangs are usually expected to be present but are not. For such cases I would suggest something like no_bangs or fringeless, preferring the latter. Such a case may be as @fossilnix describes where a bob cut does not have bangs and could be tagged with bob_cut + fringless though I'm not sure even this is a good idea as it would encourage using the bob cut tag where it by definition does not apply.

Personally I favor nuking bangs altogether and leaving the tags for specific styles of bangs intact. There may perhaps be a functional tag for the absence of bangs but I'm not convinced. Just as blue_hair does not imply hair, blunt bangs really does not need to imply bangs. I believe bangs should just be a disambiguation wiki where all different bangs-related tags can be suggested, including not just blunt/asymmetrical/swept/parted but between eyes/over one eye/over eyes or other variations I've missed here.

+1 for nuking even though I made my position clear already

@fossilnix: bangs ought to be useful for finding alternate...

2016-09-06T13:39:48-04:00

bangs ought to be useful for finding alternate hairstyles where a character normally drawn without bangs has them (or vice versa), but it's too inconsistently tagged to do that.

It should also be useful for finding specific hairstyles, for example, bob cut with bangs vs. without. Again, though, it doesn't work because there are too many pictures with bangs that don't have the tag.

I think bangs is a potentially useful tag, but like any tag it's only useful if it's used.

(On a side note, since Provence brought up blush, I'd like to say that in my opinion the trouble with that tag is that it mixes light blushing and deep embarrassed/aroused blushing. The former is incredibly common, which makes it hard to search for the latter...but that's a separate topic)

@user_460797: Reading the definition: Pretty much everything...

2016-09-06T13:15:31-04:00

Reading the definition: Pretty much everything would be bangs then. I don't use this tag but if I can use the specific bangs tags, it is added automatically.
Or we only use the tag when blunt_bangs etc. apply....
But there is also the blush tag. Also very populsted and probably doesn't serve any real purpose, I guess. It's just too big and nearly every picture has it.

So we can keep it, but it wouldn't hurt much if eliminated, I guess.

@BrokenEagle98: I guess the main question is, is bangs a useful...

2016-09-06T13:06:38-04:00

I guess the main question is, is bangs a useful tag? Would removing it cause any tag search difficulties?

I'm sort of leaning towards getting rid of it, but that's just because I can't think of a situation where it would be useful, not that such a situation doesn't exist.

@chilled_sake: I think you are right that nearly all of the...

2016-09-06T01:23:11-04:00

I think you are right that nearly all of the posts in that search qualify for bangs. This is applicable to most of ~hair_over_eyes ~hair_over_one_eye -bangs as well.

However I think this is more to do with bangs itself being a superfluous tag applicable to nearly every post. Going through -bangs using the r keybind will make this pretty apparent. Instead of making the tags for hair that is between or over eyes to imply bangs just as blunt, parted, swept, and asymmetrical bangs do, I would propose removing the implications for the latter and perhaps nuking bangs altogether.

@BrokenEagle98: Looking at hair_between_eyes -bangs, it seems...

2016-04-01T14:55:58-04:00

Looking at hair_between_eyes -bangs, it seems like most of them qualify for the bangs tag, although I don't want to create an implication, since I can think of instances where bangs wouldn't apply, e.g. a tight ponytail or pigtail where a single lock of hair extends between the eyes.

Can someone check me on my understanding of bangs? I'd like some input before I do any manual tag adding.

Edit:

Changed Topic Title