Posted under Tags
create implication eyebrows_visible_through_hair -> eyebrows
Exactly as the tin says, I'm surprised this hasn't been done before.
EDIT: The tag implication eyebrows_visible_through_hair -> eyebrows (forum #151714) has been rejected by @Mysterious_Uploader.
Updated by DanbooruBot
It has been done before -- topic #13025 undid it
The tag implication eyebrows_visible_through_hair -> eyebrows (forum #151714) has been rejected by @Mysterious_Uploader.
fossilnix said:
It has been done before -- topic #13025 undid it
My bad.
fossilnix said:
It has been done before -- topic #13025 undid it
I was about to say there should be an alias from eyebrows to thick eyebrows then, before I realize thick eyebrows already existed.
There's no example of the thickness difference between eyebrows and thick eyebrows. It seems people are tagging eyebrows regardless of thickness like this, this, and this.
Searching eyebrows bowsette yields 7 pages whereas thick_eyebrows bowsette yields 17 pages. Both results are pretty similar in eyebrows thickness.
Shouldn't eyebrows be merged to thick eyebrows since they're practically similar while the term eyebrows is just misleading?
Vezral said:
I was about to say there should be an alias from eyebrows to thick eyebrows then, before I realize thick eyebrows already existed.
There's no example of the thickness difference between eyebrows and thick eyebrows. It seems people are tagging eyebrows regardless of thickness like this, this, and this.
Searching eyebrows bowsette yields 7 pages whereas thick_eyebrows bowsette yields 17 pages. Both results are pretty similar in eyebrows thickness.
Shouldn't eyebrows be merged to thick eyebrows since they're practically similar while the term eyebrows is just misleading?
The problem with that is that it would require a massive tag gardening since most of the posts under eyebrows is probably just normal-looking ones. That said I don't think the eyebrows tag serves much purpose.
Vezral said:
I was about to say there should be an alias from eyebrows to thick eyebrows then, before I realize thick eyebrows already existed.
There's no example of the thickness difference between eyebrows and thick eyebrows. It seems people are tagging eyebrows regardless of thickness like this, this, and this.
Searching eyebrows bowsette yields 7 pages whereas thick_eyebrows bowsette yields 17 pages. Both results are pretty similar in eyebrows thickness.
Shouldn't eyebrows be merged to thick eyebrows since they're practically similar while the term eyebrows is just misleading?
There's some past discussion on this in topic #14143 as well.
Looking back since topic #13025, it's hard to say that the eyebrows tag has become what we wanted or improved much. You could look through my own use of the tag user:chinatsu eyebrows to judge if these are notable enough examples. As a tag itself, I'm not sure how useful eyebrows is. The posts are not typically notable. Would we be better served with a pool, for perfect or notable eyebrows?
chinatsu said:
Would we be better served with a pool, for perfect or notable eyebrows?
I don't know how useful such a pool would be, but it isn't a bad idea.
Should eyebrows behind hair actually be named eyebrows under hair? Most tags especaially those regarding clothing use "under" or "over" to describe their location, and the eyebrows behind hair would show up on similar autofill results.
忍猫 said:
Should eyebrows behind hair actually be named eyebrows under hair? Most tags especaially those regarding clothing use "under" or "over" to describe their location, and the eyebrows behind hair would show up on similar autofill results.
Evebrows that are visible through hair are technically under the hair, though, so in this case that could cause confusion. Those tags say nothing about whether or not the thing underneath is visible (indeed in cases like panties under pantyhose the panties will almost always be visible under the pantyhose) which is the distinction that is trying to be made here.
