create alias pants_down -> pants_pull

Link to alias

consistency.

EDIT: This tag alias has been rejected because it was not approved within 60 days.

EDIT: The tag alias pants_down -> pants_pull (forum #141235) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

Can you elaborate on the reasoning for this beyond "consistency"? Each of these tags currently has a distinct usage; aliasing one to the other will result in the loss of this distinction.

I presume the "consistency" is with panties down being aliased to panty pull? I'd rather see that alias removed than this one made to be honest.

Yeah...an implication might work, but an alias looks weird.

It was the panty_pull argument. If panties_down is aliased into panty_pull, then it the same reasoning in that case could and should be applied to pants_down.

I'd personally rather see the panties_down -> panty_pull alias removed or reversed, than pants_down aliased to pants_pull. It's never made sense to me why "pull" is being used for so many images where something is not actively being pulled

fossilnix said:

I'd personally rather see the panties_down -> panty_pull alias removed or reversed, than pants_down aliased to pants_pull. It's never made sense to me why "pull" is being used for so many images where something is not actively being pulled

Well it's not named panty_pulling or anything at least, more in the lines of panties that has been pull(ed) down, I'm against reversing this alias but I'm fine with making panties_down implicate panty_pull.

And let's not forget we have skirt pull and skirt down as well.

Setsunator said:

It was the panty_pull argument. If panties_down is aliased into panty_pull, then it the same reasoning in that case could and should be applied to pants_down.

The previous alias was made because panty_down and panty_pull were being used for the exact same thing (topic #1444). That reasoning doesn't apply in this case because pants down and pants pull have two different definitions. Granted, the modern definitions of these tags aren't the same as the ones suggested in forum #70014, but the important thing is that there's still a distinction worth preserving.

Unbreakable said:

I'm fine with making panties_down implicate panty_pull.

Wouldn't the implication go the other way?

kuuderes_shadow said:

Wouldn't the implication go the other way?

No? I was under the impression that panty pull was to remain what it is (I am strongly for this) and panties down to be used just as pants down are.

Unbreakable said:

No? I was under the impression that panty pull was to remain what it is (I am strongly for this) and panties down to be used just as pants down are.

Wait, so leaving panty pull as "panties down whether being pulled or not", and making panties down being "panties down but specifically not being pulled"? That sounds far less intuitive to me.

kuuderes_shadow said:

Wait, so leaving panty pull as "panties down whether being pulled or not", and making panties down being "panties down but specifically not being pulled"? That sounds far less intuitive to me.

Well to be honest it's mostly because that's what the definition is right now and I like it how it is, for some reason panties down sounds silly to me.

Don't take this as I'm 100% against a change though, if other want to change I can adapt to it as well.

iridescent_slime said:

The previous alias was made because panty_down and panty_pull were being used for the exact same thing (topic #1444). That reasoning doesn't apply in this case because pants down and pants pull have two different definitions. Granted, the modern definitions of these tags aren't the same as the ones suggested in forum #70014, but the important thing is that there's still a distinction worth preserving.

That's nice, only we don't have a panty_down or panties_down. So the same reasoning should, and I will say it again, still be applicable. If we don't have separate tag for panties that are being pulled down and for panties that are down around the legs, then why do we need too separate it for skirts and pants? So either create a panties_down for panties, or alias the other _down tags to the _pull ones.

Setsunator said:

That's nice, only we don't have a panty_down or panties_down. So the same reasoning should, and I will say it again, still be applicable. If we don't have separate tag for panties that are being pulled down and for panties that are down around the legs, then why do we need too separate it for skirts and pants? So either create a panties_down for panties, or alias the other _down tags to the _pull ones.

You're not serious, are you? You cannot possibly be serious.

We don't have panty_down or panties_down tags because they were aliased away. You know, the very same alias you were using as justification for creating a new alias. For the same reason, one can't simply "create" a panties_down tag because this tag can't be repopulated for as long as the alias exists.

This tag alias has been rejected because it was not approved within 60 days.

The tag alias pants_down -> pants_pull (forum #141235) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.