Skirt_in_mouth vs. dress_in_mouth

@DanbooruBot: The bulk update request #994 (forum #123766)...

2018-04-27T14:44:20-04:00

The bulk update request #994 (forum #123766) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

@DanbooruBot: This bulk update request has been rejected...

2018-04-27T14:44:20-04:00

This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 60 days.

@Benit149: Well now that skirt and dress have been better...

2016-12-22T19:10:15-05:00

Well now that skirt and dress have been better defined, what is our stance on this discussion? I wanted to see what people thought of what I said in forum #123802, but the definitions for skirt and dress needed to tightened first before addressing this.

@user_460797: > Benit149 said: > > An addendum to the first...

2016-12-11T16:26:44-05:00

Benit149 said:

An addendum to the first definition for raised_* is that we could further separate them into raised_* and caught_*, since a skirt or dress caught on an external object like a hook or branch or whatever would be accidental exposure, not deliberate. With raised_*, we're trying to capture the purposeful intention of the raised clothing.

I also thought so, too. I saw some posts under skirt_grab where the skirtg is indeed caught by a fishing rod. And catching something is still something different than just lifting a skirt up by the hands or other body parts.

@Benit149: An addendum to the first definition for...

2016-12-11T16:24:46-05:00

An addendum to the first definition for raised_* is that we could further separate them into raised_* and caught_*, since a skirt or dress caught on an external object like a hook or branch or whatever would be accidental exposure, not deliberate. With raised_*, we're trying to capture the purposeful intention of the raised clothing.

There is also something like skirt_basket:
This can be both. The crotch be exposed, so it is possible to make skirt_lift + skirt_basket. If the crotch is not exposed, then use skirt_hold + skirt_basket.

Right. The wiki would need an update to include this point. Granted there aren't a ton of posts that fit the skirt_lift + skirt_basket group, but they do exist. It's far more common to see the skirt_hold + skirt_basket group since it's impractical to have a makeshift basket go above the waist.

Just from quickly browsing through the skirt_basket posts, I can see some that would fit better as dress_basket, so I'm not sure why the alias exists if skirt =/= dress on Danbooru.

@user_460797: I can agree with your first three definitions...

2016-12-11T16:17:26-05:00

I can agree with your first three definitions of those tags. That way, we could get rid of the confusion between lifting and skirt hold.
With the tug, I'm also on your side. I also don't think that there will be any confusion between skirt tug and skirt pull.

Grabbing is still a thing, I like to stay seperate:
post #2486882 for example is neither tugging, nor lifting, nor pulling, nor holding.
Same with post #2358262.
So I'd say that grabbing isn't bound to a direction.
The other tags do have a direction: Lifting and Holding are upwards, while pulling and tugging are downwards. When grabbing a skirt, the skirt is only scrunched on a specific spot (like the crotch area on the second post).

(The same counts for dresses, but it is dress lift, dress tug, dress pull, dress hold and dress grab.)

There is also something like skirt_basket:
This can be both. The crotch be exposed, so it is possible to make skirt_lift + skirt_basket. If the crotch is not exposed, then use skirt_hold + skirt_basket.

And here again: The same for dress basket (although dress basket is aliased right now to skirt basket, so we should get rid of this alias and a few others, because dress =/= skirt.

@Benit149: Okay, so from what I understand, *_lift is the...

2016-12-11T16:03:46-05:00

Okay, so from what I understand, *_lift is the revealing type while *_hold is the non-revealing, which makes sense because 'lift' means to elevate something to a higher level while 'hold' is simply grabbing something in one's hands. But from browsing the skirt_* and dress_* tags, I've seen some tags that are worded similarly, as follows:

skirt_lift / dress_lift
skirt_hold (dress_hold aliased to this)
skirt_tug / dress_tug
skirt_grab / dress_grab (looks the same as the *_hold tags)
curtsey (specific pose)

The variances are slight, but they all involve grabbing the skirt with the hands. Let me discuss each one in detail.

*_lift: Here's where a lot of gardening is required. If we want to separate 'lift' and 'hold' based on the degree of exposure, then I already see a bunch of images that need moving around just in dress_lift alone. Assuming this is the revealing type, there are some images that don't fit the definition. Better defined tags might be something like raised_skirt and raised_dress to show the intent that the garment is purposely being raised rather than just being held.

If I were defining it, I would write it as follows:

RAISED SKIRT/DRESS: "When a character is purposely raising a skirt/dress that's being worn in order to show what is (or not) being worn underneath. The clothing needs to be raised at least from the crotch upwards to expose the genital area. Any lower than that would be considered (TAG) instead. It can either be the wearer voluntarily raising the skirt/dress themselves, someone else lifting it involuntarily, or through accidental exposure like the clothing getting caught on a hook or sharp object. The degree of exposure varies, but always begins from the crotch and can rise to the upper chest."

*_hold: What if the verb was changed so it became held_skirt and held_dress to fit with the raised_* set I suggested? That way, it's the verb that's primarily telling the difference instead of the noun. See my notes on *_grab as well. In the same vein as the raised_* wiki I wrote, I'd write the wiki for this one as:

HELD SKIRT/DRESS: "When a character is holding a skirt/dress that's being worn, either by themselves or someone else. The garment is being grabbed and held from the waist down so as not to show the wearer's undergarments. If it is being raised from the waist above, use (TAG) instead, as that involves exposure of the wearer's body whereas this doesn't. Note that if someone is holding another's skirt/dress at waist length, it's not considered assisted exposure."

*_tug: These are specifically for covering positions so the wearer's undergarments aren't revealed. In essence, this is the exact opposite of what we're discussing. Since the skirt isn't always being grabbed by the hands per se, I think we can leave this one out of the discussion.

*_grab: These ones are the least populated, but they're correctly used in terms of the *_hold tags, where the cloth is not being held above the waist. Perhaps an alias is needed here?

@NWF_Renim: We'll have to start discussing and hammering...

2016-12-11T15:00:28-05:00

We'll have to start discussing and hammering out the definitions of skirt_lift and dress_lift before we proceed with the skirt_lift implication, due to it implying the skirt tag. We'll need skirt_lift to drop the skirt implication if we proceed with this.

Also dress_in_mouth images will need to be made sure they're tagged dress_lift (if we're not resolving the dress_lift and skirt_lift definitions) or manually added to those where it is applicable (if we do resolve and change the definitions of skirt_lift and dress_lift).

@Benit149: > Provence said: > > Should skirt lift with...

2016-12-11T14:29:29-05:00

Provence said:

Should skirt lift with mouth then also imply mouth hold?

Added it to my proposal list.

@user_460797: Should skirt lift with mouth then also imply...

2016-12-11T14:26:44-05:00

Should skirt lift with mouth then also imply mouth hold?

@Benit149: Yeah, ultimately skirt_in_mouth is really a...

2016-12-11T13:28:32-05:00

Yeah, ultimately skirt_in_mouth is really a subset of skirt_lift, so I could go with skirt_lift_with_mouth as the better defined tag, thereby avoiding making subsets within subsets and just confusing the issue more. Then it could be implicated with skirt_lift. As long as skirt_lift and dress_lift are explained in detail in their wikis, then any sort of subsets can have those definitions applied as well.

Then dress_lift_with_mouth would be aliased to skirt_lift_with_mouth, and the latter's wiki would have to explain the reasoning for the alias so we don't have people populating the former tag. What I believe is the most important aspect of this tag is the action itself - of the character using their mouth to lift the skirt rather than their hands. The degree of exposure and the lengths of the skirts vary wildly, so it'd be impractical to tag every instance.

Therefore, my proposed BUR would look like this:

create alias dress_lift_with_mouth -> skirt_lift_with_mouth
create alias skirt_in_mouth -> skirt_lift_with_mouth
create alias dress_in_mouth -> skirt_lift_with_mouth
create implication skirt_lift_with_mouth -> skirt_lift
create implication skirt_lift_with_mouth -> mouth_hold

And the proposed wiki for skirt_lift_with_mouth would be:

"When a character is holding up either a skirt or dress with their mouth rather than their hands, thereby exposing what they are (or not) wearing beneath. The length and style of the skirt nor the degree of exposure are not relevant for this tag. All that is required is for the action to be performed."

@NWF_Renim: > Benit149 said: > > I took a quick gander...

2016-12-11T13:14:53-05:00

Benit149 said:

I took a quick gander through both tags, and the number of characters lifting the skirt high enough to expose their chest is very few. (post #148418, post #83845, post #1109571) I agree that the degree of exposure is way easier to determine than the length of the skirt, but going by these guidelines, dress_in_mouth would be very underpopulated compared to skirt_in_mouth.

[...]

As I said above, dress_in_mouth would be underpopulated if kept separate, so a subset based on degree of exposure would be beneficial. After all, the action is the same.

I don't really have an issue with dress_in_mouth being very underpopulated, as lifting of the full dress to begin with was always very niche in comparison to simply lifting just the skirt portion. Combine that with the extra niche of lifting with the mouth and you're of course going to have a pool that is only a small niche within an already small niche.

Benit149 said:

There's also the possibility of the breasts already being outside while just the skirt is being lifted, such as post #57912 or post #1832217. Would those thus be tagged skirt_in_mouth breasts_outside instead?

Yes, images like that would be tagged something else. In particular post #1832217 would be both a lift and a dress_pull (pulls are pulling down from the top, where lifts are pulling up the bottom).

Benit149 said:

I wonder if there were new tags that could be made to make them less confusing to those unfamiliar with the tags though. As frustrating as it is, not everyone reads through the wikis or peruses the forums to do research on these topics, leading to wildly mistagged images. Ergo, skirt_in_mouth and dress_in_mouth would look the same to these folks.

What if there was something like skirt_in_mouth_exposing_waist and skirt_in_mouth_exposing_chest to tell the two apart? Yes, they're wordy, but they're just examples of how much clearer the tags can be worded. Then the dress_* equivalents can be aliased to them.

Well there are several approaches that could be taken probably, but instead of making new tags, it might make more sense to turn to how the issue stems from the skirt_lift and dress_lift tags. If we changed the definitions of skirt_lift and dress_lift to be based on exposure (probably also change the name of dress_lift to full_dress_lift or simply make a new tag for that and alias over dress_lift I guess to skirt_lift), then all we'd need here is a tag to indicate that the skirt of the outfit is being lifted by the wearer's mouth. Determining the degree of exposure is determined by the presence of skirt_lift and (full_)dress_lift tags on the image.

It's similar to what you're proposing, but by dealing with the issue between dress_lift and skirt_lift we successfully reduce the total number of tags here from 4 tags or equivalents (skirt_in_mouth/skirt_in_mouth_exposing_waist, dress_in_mouth/skirt_in_mouth_exposing_chest, dress_lift, skirt_lift) to 3 (skirt_in_mouth, dress_lift, skirt_lift).

Given that skirt_in_mouth really is a type of skirt_lift, naming-wise I think lift would be more appropriate to include in the tag name. Though the only idea I came up with for that was like mouth_skirt_lift, which sounds odd (maybe skirt_lift_with_mouth?).

@user_441999: I don't have a visual example - I would have...

2016-12-11T12:38:11-05:00

I don't have a visual example - I would have provided one if I did. It was more a case of something that could come up in the future. I was referring to cases where the body part of the dress is the bit in the mouth rather than the skirt part, which is perfectly possible with some loose fitting dresses - and with longer dresses this wouldn't then expose the chest. If that doesn't count for the tag then that's fine but it should probably be specifically mentioned (dress in mouth does not currently have a wiki page).

@NWF_Renim: > kuuderes_shadow said: > > What if the upper...

2016-12-11T12:21:43-05:00

kuuderes_shadow said:

What if the upper part of the dress is in the mouth but the chest is not exposed?

Care to provide a visual example or more fully go into details? From how I'm mentally visualizing it, it would seem to be out of the scope of the tag given how the tag is currently being used (naming doesn't always perfectly match intended usage).

The closest currently under the dress_in_mouth tag would be post #312227, but that could be placed under skirt_in_mouth under my proposed setups.

@Benit149: > NWF_Renim said: > > These are two proposals...

2016-12-11T12:08:50-05:00

NWF_Renim said:

These are two proposals we could take:

(1) Complete separation between dress_in_mouth and skirt_in_mouth, by defining them based on degree of exposure.

Skirt_in_mouth defined as a character holding up their skirt (whether a skirt garment or part of a dress) with their mouth and exposing up to, but not higher than, their waist.

Dress_in_mouth defined as a character holding up their dress with their mouth and exposing their chest. If lower than that, use the skirt_in_mouth tag instead.

Notes: Dress_in_mouth could still implicate dress, but skirt_in_mouth will have to be made sure not to implicate skirt.

I took a quick gander through both tags, and the number of characters lifting the skirt high enough to expose their chest is very few. (post #148418, post #83845, post #1109571) I agree that the degree of exposure is way easier to determine than the length of the skirt, but going by these guidelines, dress_in_mouth would be very underpopulated compared to skirt_in_mouth.

There's also the possibility of the breasts already being outside while just the skirt is being lifted, such as post #57912 or post #1832217. Would those thus be tagged skirt_in_mouth breasts_outside instead?

(2) Dress_in_mouth is a subset of skirt_in_mouth, dress_in_mouth distinguished by degree of exposure.

Skirt_in_mouth is defined as a character holding up their skirt (whether a skirt garment or part of a dress) with their mouth.

Dress_in_mouth defined as a character holding up their dress with their mouth and exposing their chest.

Notes: Same as previous, dress_in_mouth can implicate dress, but skirt_in_mouth will have to be insured not to implicate skirt.

As I said above, dress_in_mouth would be underpopulated if kept separate, so a subset based on degree of exposure would be beneficial. After all, the action is the same.

I wonder if there were new tags that could be made to make them less confusing to those unfamiliar with the tags though. As frustrating as it is, not everyone reads through the wikis or peruses the forums to do research on these topics, leading to wildly mistagged images. Ergo, skirt_in_mouth and dress_in_mouth would look the same to these folks.

What if there was something like skirt_in_mouth_exposing_waist and skirt_in_mouth_exposing_chest to tell the two apart? Yes, they're wordy, but they're just examples of how much clearer the tags can be worded. Then the dress_* equivalents can be aliased to them.

@user_441999: What if the upper part of the dress is in the...

2016-12-11T11:42:16-05:00

What if the upper part of the dress is in the mouth but the chest is not exposed?

@NWF_Renim: These are two proposals we could take: * (1)...

2016-12-11T10:36:09-05:00

These are two proposals we could take:

(1) Complete separation between dress_in_mouth and skirt_in_mouth, by defining them based on degree of exposure.

Skirt_in_mouth defined as a character holding up their skirt (whether a skirt garment or part of a dress) with their mouth and exposing up to, but not higher than, their waist.
Dress_in_mouth defined as a character holding up their dress with their mouth and exposing their chest. If lower than that, use the skirt_in_mouth tag instead.
Notes: Dress_in_mouth could still implicate dress, but skirt_in_mouth will have to be made sure not to implicate skirt.

(2) Dress_in_mouth is a subset of skirt_in_mouth, dress_in_mouth distinguished by degree of exposure.

Skirt_in_mouth is defined as a character holding up their skirt (whether a skirt garment or part of a dress) with their mouth.
Dress_in_mouth defined as a character holding up their dress with their mouth and exposing their chest.
Notes: Same as previous, dress_in_mouth can implicate dress, but skirt_in_mouth will have to be insured not to implicate skirt.

Either of these will require cleanup of the dress_in_mouth tag, and the first will also require cleanup of the skirt_in_mouth tag.

These same setups could be used for the dress_lift and skirt_lift tags as well.

@Benit149: I don't mind keeping them separate, but then...

2016-12-11T10:01:12-05:00

I don't mind keeping them separate, but then there needs to be some tag gardening done so that there's a visible difference between a short skirt and a long dress being held up. As the posts are right now, I'm not seeing the difference at all.

@Mikaeri: I suppose I'll be changing mine to a -1 since...

2016-12-11T08:14:26-05:00

I suppose I'll be changing mine to a -1 since after thinking about it that distinction is in fact important. evazion is still right on how we have a few tags that diverge too much for the same action though, but that's probably for another discussion.

@user_460797: topic #13006, last comment. Therefore a clear...

2016-12-11T05:39:32-05:00

topic #13006, last comment.
Therefore a clear -1 from me to that alias, because I suggest the exact opposite.