create implication hime_cut -> blunt_bangs

Link to implication

Blunt bangs are a required part of the hime cut style, so it may as well be automatically added to anything tagged with hime_cut.

+1 for this.

+1, already thought this was the case.

The hime cut wiki says sidelocks and long hair are the other requirements. Should those be implicated also?

On one hand, there might be cases where the sidelocks/long hair/blunt bangs aren't visible, but on the other hand, should it really be tagged hime cut if the defining characteristics aren't visible?

EDIT: example: post #131981, tagged hime cut even though her bangs or sidelocks aren't visible.

Are blunt bangs mandatory for the hairstyle? While I know it is common place to have them, there do seem to be depictions interspersed amongst the hime_cut images that do not have blunt bangs. A notable one I came across is Karasuma Chitose (post #644132), as her hairstyle possesses straight sidelocks, straight long hair, but she does not have blunt bangs. Another one is Akiyama Mio, as many of her depictions also lack the blunt bangs like with post #1293679.

Well the Wikipedia page says that the hime cut is "a hairstyle consisting of straight, usually cheek-length sidelocks and frontal fringe". But then later it talks about variations such as a "lack of frontal fringe with only the sidelocks present" implying that blunt bangs aren't particularly necessary. So perhaps although variations of the hairstyle exist, here on Danbooru it has become commonplace to not tag these variations under hime_cut?

evazion: Yeah, I think it's pretty silly to tag a post like that when you can't even see what the tag is supposed to show. I went and removed it from that one.

NWF Renim: That Chitose post has the hair tied at the back, so I wouldn't have tagged it to begin with. As for Mio, that's a good point and could probably do with some debate, since she is a somewhat common target of the tag, despite not having blunt bangs, or often being drawn with different bangs. I personally don't tag Mio images with hime_cut when I see them, but I also don't go removing the tag from them either.

kiyah123: Yeah, the usage we have here on Danbooru is certainly more rigid, and that applies to many tags.

Anonymaster said:

That Chitose post has the hair tied at the back, so I wouldn't have tagged it to begin with.

It's no more tied back than Fujiwara no Mokou (post #2482034) or Hiyou_(kantai_collection) (post #2402919), are you saying their posts should not be included as well?

No, they really shouldn't. I'd only tag them with blunt_bangs and/or sidelocks, not with hime_cut.

I would give my support for this. In my opinion, all the images posted in this thread to clarify the issue are not deserving of the tag, whose requirements are rather specific.

A hime cut can be viewed form different perspectives, e.g., from behind as in post #2548522

-1

sweetpeɐ said:

A hime cut can be viewed form different perspectives, e.g., from behind as in post #2548522

-1

You only tag what you can see. In no case should you tag something just because a character usually has it, even though you can't see it clearly.

CodeKyuubi said:

You only tag what you can see. In no case should you tag something just because a character usually has it, even though you can't see it clearly.

Well as a matter of fact you can never see the entirety of a woman's head. For a typical picture where the woman is looking at the viewer and you can clearly see her sidelocks and bangs, you cannot actually see whether the back of her head has hair or if it's shaved. Likewise, seeing a side shot of a hime cut like that, you can see the sidelocks and part of the bangs you just can't see whether they go all the way across uniformly but you can infer they could or in fact do (same thing). So yes that would be a legitimate hime cut but not blunt bangs in my perception.

sweetpeɐ said:

Well as a matter of fact you can never see the entirety of a woman's head. For a typical picture where the woman is looking at the viewer and you can clearly see her sidelocks and bangs, you cannot actually see whether the back of her head has hair or if it's shaved. Likewise, seeing a side shot of a hime cut like that, you can see the sidelocks and part of the bangs you just can't see whether they go all the way across uniformly but you can infer they could or in fact do (same thing). So yes that would be a legitimate hime cut but not blunt bangs in my perception.

It does not behoove you to act like a smartass. There are very few situations where the hair running down the back is not visible between their neck and sidelocks, as well as artists typically drawing hair in varying forms of flipped_hair fashion, because readability is more important than technical accuracy.

CodeKyuubi said:

It does not behoove you to act like a smartass. There are very few situations where the hair running down the back is not visible between their neck and sidelocks, as well as artists typically drawing hair in varying forms of flipped_hair fashion, because readability is more important than technical accuracy.

I don't believe a personal slight such as this is appropriate. We can disagree on whether blunt bangs need to be visible from a certain perspective for an image to be a hime cut—just as an upper body only school uniform pic where the skirt is cut off may or may not strictly speaking be tagged as a serafuku—but we shouldn't assume someone is commenting in bad faith as I feel you were suggesting of me.

I see someone in fact removed hime cut from the example I used, I have to wonder whether they saw this discussion or if they did so on their own volition. I guess the next logical question is, if a hime cut viewed from behind should not be tagged as hime cut, should a serafuku viewed from behind where the neckerchief isn't visible not be tagged as such either? Sure a neckerchief isn't an essential element to a serafuku but there is a point at which viewed from behind it could be seen as just a skirt and blouse which doesn't necessarily qualify as a uniform. Similarly a blazer school uniform viewed from behind can be just considered a blazer but this would not seem intuitive... Nonetheless I shall consider myself neutral on this implication request...

Isn't the more crucial question if blunt bangs are really necessary? I don't really see them included in the definition, but only as an example?

Provence said:

Isn't the more crucial question if blunt bangs are really necessary? I don't really see them included in the definition, but only as an example?

I would say yes, there are plenty of images where a person has blunt bangs but no hime cut, either because of lack of sidelocks, hairstyle, or length of hair.

Well, if I google the term, I get this picture as an example:
http://www.sheideas.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Amazing-Bob-and-Hime-Cut-Hair-Style-2016.jpg
Can't really say that the bangs are blunt on this one. They are, off course, nearly blunt, but more fringed. And that is also what the wiki is saying: Hime cut has a frontal fringe (and most often blunt bangs).

As for tagging images with serafuku/hime cut: We have the guideline to take what we see. But the comparison from serafuku to hime cut is not the same: Hairstyles may vary, especially for original characters drawn from behind in that case. While this is the same for original characters and attire, one can see, according to the setting, that someone is wearing a serafuku (for example the character is drawn from behind, but they are in a school and are wearing a skirt/shorts and a shirt. Then one could make the assumption that the shirt is indeed a serafuku. But this should be treated with cautious. Of course one could also only tag the post with shirt and call it a day. It might even be more correct this way.
This is not the same with hairstyles. I think one can't really say by reference of the surroundings what a character is having for their hair. I'd just not tag anything here in every case.

Long story short: If something crucial is missing, it is better to leave it out. Misuse of tags is worse than not tagging.

I've gone through hime_cut -long_hair and added long hair to most posts where it was missing. Most of what remains are things where the length is not obvious, or it's actually short hair and probably shouldn't be tagged hime cut. I'll leave cleaning that up to the hime cut connoisseurs though.

Sorry about the late reply here, I stopped checking this thread shortly after CodeKyuubi's second-last post.

Provence said:

Well, if I google the term, I get this picture as an example:
http://www.sheideas.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Amazing-Bob-and-Hime-Cut-Hair-Style-2016.jpg
Can't really say that the bangs are blunt on this one. They are, off course, nearly blunt, but more fringed. And that is also what the wiki is saying: Hime cut has a frontal fringe (and most often blunt bangs).

That image isn't even a himecut in the first place, it's a bob cut. And that just goes to show that pulling a random result off of Google images isn't a good way to prove a point.
If we want to talk about the definition of himecut, I've made a previous thread on the subject when I saw it being mistagged regularly, and I believe that still stands: http://danbooru.me/forum_topics/11788