tag:danbooru.me,2005:/forum_topics/12742Tag implication: swim_trunks -> swimsuit2018-02-05T19:28:19-05:00tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/1427922018-02-05T19:28:19-05:002018-04-27T14:45:47-04:00@Kikimaru: *edit: moved to topic #12740
EDIT: This bulk...<p>*edit: moved to <a class="dtext-link dtext-id-link dtext-forum-topic-id-link" href="/forum_topics/12740">topic #12740</a></p><p>EDIT: This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 60 days.</p><p>EDIT: The <a class="dtext-link" href="/bulk_update_requests?search%5Bid%5D=1471">bulk update request #1471</a> (<a class="dtext-link dtext-id-link dtext-forum-post-id-link" href="/forum_posts/142792">forum #142792</a>) has been rejected by <a href="/users?name=DanbooruBot">@DanbooruBot</a>.</p>Kikimaru/users/11314tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/1151862016-05-24T19:30:02-04:002016-05-24T19:30:02-04:00@NWF_Renim: > 90sAnimeFan said:
>
> Wouldn't it be logical...<blockquote>
<p>90sAnimeFan said:</p>
<p>Wouldn't it be logical that one-piece swimsuits and bikinis now implicate <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link dtext-wiki-does-not-exist tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/swimwear" title="This wiki page does not exist">swimwear</a> as well? And get rid of the <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/swimsuit">swimsuit</a> tag?</p>
</blockquote><p>Not really, there needs to be separate tags for male and female swimwear, as there is heavy overlap in depictions (ie male characters depicted with female characters, over 50% of images with males also depict females). It means any negative search using a -male_swimwear tag will purge a larger number of female swimsuit images from results, and vice-versa.</p>NWF_Renim/users/13392tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/1151752016-05-24T09:19:52-04:002016-05-24T09:28:42-04:00@90sAnimeFan: Wouldn't it be logical that one-piece swimsuits...<p>Wouldn't it be logical that one-piece swimsuits and bikinis now implicate <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link dtext-wiki-does-not-exist tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/swimwear" title="This wiki page does not exist">swimwear</a> as well? And get rid of the <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/swimsuit">swimsuit</a> tag?</p>90sAnimeFan/users/461776tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/1145322016-05-08T00:13:08-04:002016-05-08T00:13:08-04:00@user_460797: > MyrMindservant said:
>
> Umbrella tags are...<blockquote>
<p>MyrMindservant said:</p>
<p>Umbrella tags are useful when there are posts that aren't covered by one of the more specific tags, or for cases when it's hard to tell which specific tag should be used.<br>In this case we already have two catch-all tags that cover everything and <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link dtext-wiki-does-not-exist tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/swimwear" title="This wiki page does not exist">swimwear</a> can be completely replaced by the <a class="dtext-link dtext-post-search-link" href="/posts?tags=~swimsuit%20~male_swimwear">~swimsuit ~male_swimwear</a> search. It would just add clutter without serving any real purpose.</p>
<p>So my suggestion is: remove the implication leading to <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link dtext-wiki-does-not-exist tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/swimwear" title="This wiki page does not exist">swimwear</a> and nuke the tag.</p>
</blockquote><p>No clutter. The purpose is less tags used when searching. You would still search with two tags. That could be reduced to one if you want to search after general swimwear tags. It also doesn't destroy anything, since it it the general. So it doesn't get really in the way if one searches for bikini only, since other swimming attire are most of the time present. <br>So, 2 tags in one (-> one free slot to search) and doesn't hurt. </p>user_460797/users/460797tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/1145312016-05-08T00:02:41-04:002016-05-08T00:02:41-04:00@MyrMindservant: Umbrella tags are useful when there are posts...<p>Umbrella tags are useful when there are posts that aren't covered by one of the more specific tags, or for cases when it's hard to tell which specific tag should be used.<br>In this case we already have two catch-all tags that cover everything and <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link dtext-wiki-does-not-exist tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/swimwear" title="This wiki page does not exist">swimwear</a> can be completely replaced by the <a class="dtext-link dtext-post-search-link" href="/posts?tags=~swimsuit%20~male_swimwear">~swimsuit ~male_swimwear</a> search. It would just add clutter without serving any real purpose.</p><p>So my suggestion is: remove the implication leading to <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link dtext-wiki-does-not-exist tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/swimwear" title="This wiki page does not exist">swimwear</a> and nuke the tag.</p>MyrMindservant/users/206050tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/1145242016-05-07T20:43:18-04:002016-05-07T20:57:21-04:00@user_460797: > 90sAnimeFan said:
>
> So, will someone have...<blockquote>
<p>90sAnimeFan said:</p>
<p>So, will someone have to manually remove "swimsuit" from all the male swimwear pics now?</p>
</blockquote><p>Ugg, you're right ;_;<br>Btw. since the implication-chain is now nearly done:<br>Shouldn't swimsuit (or better swimsuit = female swimwear) imply swimwear, too?</p><p>So, it should be done now. </p>user_460797/users/460797tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/1145202016-05-07T20:37:48-04:002016-05-07T20:37:48-04:00@90sAnimeFan: So, will someone have to manually remove...<p>So, will someone have to manually remove "swimsuit" from all the male swimwear pics now?</p>90sAnimeFan/users/461776tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/1142982016-04-29T19:35:28-04:002016-04-29T19:35:28-04:00@NWF_Renim: The bulk update request #684 has been approved.<p>The bulk update request #684 has been approved.</p>NWF_Renim/users/13392tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/1140672016-04-23T11:36:54-04:002016-04-23T11:36:54-04:00@NWF_Renim: The bulk update request #685 has been approved.<p>The bulk update request #685 has been approved.</p>NWF_Renim/users/13392tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/1140652016-04-23T11:28:52-04:002016-04-23T11:28:52-04:00@user_460797: > NWF_Renim said:
>
> Perhaps you meant...<blockquote>
<p>NWF_Renim said:</p>
<p>Perhaps you meant <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/swim_briefs">swim_briefs</a> -> <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/swimsuit">swimsuit</a>? Swim trunks currently does not implicate swimsuit.</p>
</blockquote><p>Now it fits :3. </p>user_460797/users/460797tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/1140642016-04-23T11:27:28-04:002016-04-23T11:27:28-04:00@NWF_Renim: > Markgraf said:
>
> remove implication...<blockquote>
<p>Markgraf said:</p>
<p>remove implication <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/swim_trunks">swim_trunks</a> -> <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/swimsuit">swimsuit</a></p>
<p><a class="dtext-link" href="/bulk_update_requests?search%5Bid%5D=685">Link to request</a></p>
</blockquote><p>Perhaps you meant <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/swim_briefs">swim_briefs</a> -> <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/swimsuit">swimsuit</a>? Swim trunks currently does not implicate swimsuit.</p>NWF_Renim/users/13392tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/1140632016-04-23T11:23:53-04:002016-04-23T11:23:53-04:00@user_460797: > tapnek said:
>
> I tried that already. NWF...<blockquote>
<p>tapnek said:</p>
<p>I tried that already. NWF Renim rejected it.</p>
</blockquote><p>Look at the last post of the last page :3. </p>user_460797/users/460797tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/1140612016-04-23T11:22:22-04:002016-04-23T11:22:22-04:00@tapnek: I tried that already. NWF Renim rejected it.<p>I tried that already. NWF Renim rejected it.</p>tapnek/users/454016tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/1140602016-04-23T11:19:18-04:002016-04-23T11:28:40-04:00@user_460797: remove implication swim_briefs -> swimsuit
...<p>remove implication <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/swim_briefs">swim_briefs</a> -> <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/swimsuit">swimsuit</a></p><p><a class="dtext-link" href="/bulk_update_requests?search%5Bid%5D=685">Link to request</a></p>user_460797/users/460797tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/1140572016-04-23T10:32:46-04:002016-04-23T10:33:02-04:00@user_460797: > Gollgagh said:
>
> "male swimwear"?
>
> No...<blockquote>
<p>Gollgagh said:</p>
<p>"male swimwear"?</p>
<p>No one calls it that.</p>
</blockquote><p>No one calls <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/male_pubic_hair">male_pubic_hair</a> either :3.</p>user_460797/users/460797tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/1140562016-04-23T10:32:02-04:002016-04-23T10:32:02-04:00@user_460797: Ok, a language thing this time. Then I won't...<p>Ok, a language thing this time. Then I won't nag here any further :3. </p>user_460797/users/460797tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/1140552016-04-23T10:31:31-04:002016-04-23T10:31:31-04:00@Gollgagh: "male swimwear"?
No one calls it that.<p>"male swimwear"?</p><p>No one calls it that.</p>Gollgagh/users/214837tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/1140542016-04-23T10:28:12-04:002016-04-23T10:29:51-04:00@NWF_Renim: There doesn't seem to be a point in removing...<p>There doesn't seem to be a point in removing the bikini/tankini implications, as swimsuit is more commonly understood as "female swimwear" (and that matches our tagging use of the tag, as opposed to our wiki's definition). While the term may have "suit" in it, that alone seems to be a poor argument to say that things like bikinis aren't under it.</p><blockquote>
<p>Merriam-Webster dictionary:</p>
<p>Simple Definition of swimsuit: special clothing that women and girls wear for swimming</p>
</blockquote><p>You can reapply to remove the swim_briefs tag, but I rejected the whole because the majority of the request was rejected.</p>NWF_Renim/users/13392tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/1140532016-04-23T10:13:11-04:002016-04-23T10:13:11-04:00@user_460797: create implication swim_briefs -> male_swimwear...<p>create implication <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/swim_briefs">swim_briefs</a> -> <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/male_swimwear">male_swimwear</a><br>create implication <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/swim_trunks">swim_trunks</a> -> <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/male_swimwear">male_swimwear</a><br>create implication <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/male_swimwear">male_swimwear</a> -> <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link dtext-wiki-does-not-exist tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/swimwear" title="This wiki page does not exist">swimwear</a></p><p><a class="dtext-link" href="/bulk_update_requests?search%5Bid%5D=684">Link to request</a></p><p>Should be obvious.<br>_____________________</p><p>Ugg, why isn't the tankini/bikini (basically the same thing) and swim briefs implication removed? <br>I thought it would be nice to now imply (not alias) swimsuit to swimwear, but bikinis and the other thing do not cover (in my eyes) the swimsuit term, so this steps back for now. </p>user_460797/users/460797tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/1140172016-04-22T19:01:09-04:002016-04-22T19:01:09-04:00@NWF_Renim: The tag implication swim_trunks -> swimsuit has...<p>The tag implication swim_trunks -> swimsuit has been rejected.</p>NWF_Renim/users/13392