I came up with a tag, parted hair, that could be used to hair with a distinct part that isn't bangs. This is because the parted bangs tag implicates bangs, and many posts are tagged this way. Posts like post #3612146 and post #3420380 don't depict bangs, and aren't what I would expect to see for a search for the tag. Those look like they should be tagged with parted hair and forehead.

Are there any other thoughts on this proposition?

I don't know about anyone else but both your example are exactly what I would expect to see when searching for parted bangs.

Unbreakable said:

I don't know about anyone else but both your example are exactly what I would expect to see when searching for parted bangs.

Really? They look like long hair that is parted to both sides to me at least. Can you show me an example of something that would include parted hair that isn't bangs?

Either there should be a new tag for parted hair (either leaving parted bangs for stuff like post #3604802 or removing it entirely and thus relying on a parted_hair + bangs search to get actual parted bangs) or the implication from parted bangs to bangs should be removed.

Rather than 忍猫's examples, I'd like to posit something like post #3493165 or post #3613795 - these would absolutely never get the bangs tag were it not for the implication from parted bangs. But it gets parted bangs because her hair is strongly parted at the front, and it gets the bangs tag as a result of that implication. These images are polluting the bangs tag in their tens of thousands*, making it much less useful than it should be.

*Most images in parted bangs are not things where I would tag bangs, or expect to see the tag there. This includes the second of 忍猫's examples.

I thought of this discussion because post #3629120 was tagged with parted bangs but bangs aren't in the image and it's definitely not what I would expect to see for a search for the tag. It's just long, straight hair parted at the top of the head.

I agree with skylightcrystal and 忍猫 that parted_bangs is causing images without bangs to be tagged with bangs, and I've long been in favor of a tag for no-bangs hair because so many uploaders don't tag bangs (see -bangs; I've been using no_bangs, which ought to be moved to parted_hair now).

I support the use of a new tag rather than the removal of the parted_bangs->bangs implication because its tag name invites the "x_bangs, so it's a kind of bangs" logic that led to the implication in the first place (topic #6180) and because I don't think it's a fitting name for hairstyles that don't have the actual short part, or where the short part isn't visible because it's parted so well or because of artist abbreviation.

parted_bangs would be a good tag for post #3604802, but if uploaders are already used to using it for non-bangs posts, I would support getting rid of it (and using parted_hair + bangs) in order to stop watering down the bangs tag. It's 36000 posts, though, which is more than anyone is going to be able to clean.