[REJECTED] Tag alias: covering_chest -> covering_breasts

@DanbooruBot: The tag alias covering_chest ->...

2017-06-11T18:28:29-04:00

The tag alias covering_chest -> covering_breasts (alias #14696) has been rejected.

@reiyasona: > ☆♪ said: > > Subtracting the girl tags can...

2017-04-23T19:22:13-04:00

☆♪ said:

Subtracting the girl tags can filter out too much, because there could be a girl in the image even if she isn't the one covering her chest.

True. Can be checked with the queries covering_chest ~1boy ~multiple_boys 1girl and covering_chest ~1boy ~multiple_boys multiple_girls.

☆♪ said:

But as you say, it may just be a problem we have to live with.

If we have a cum_on_boy tag, creating a covering_male_chest tag doesn't sound that absurd.

@☆♪: Subtracting the girl tags can filter out too...

2017-04-23T19:15:04-04:00

Subtracting the girl tags can filter out too much, because there could be a girl in the image even if she isn't the one covering her chest. But as you say, it may just be a problem we have to live with.

@reiyasona: IMO covering_breasts should imply...

2017-04-23T19:09:40-04:00

IMO covering_breasts should imply covering_chest. That's analog to cum_on_breasts -> cum_on_upper_body.

provence said:

But maybe covering_nipples is already enough for flat chested girls.

What about post #1901011, post #1805640, post #1530670, post #2661808? They are clearly covering their chest area without covering their nipples (because they are already covered by clothing).

☆♪ said:

If you were searching for the male version specifically, I can think of covering_chest ~1boy ~multiple_boys and covering_chest male_focus but neither is perfect - the latter is better but male focus might not be tagged consistently enough for it to be useful. There would be more noise in those if covering_breasts were moved in to covering_chest. The alternative would be to have a separate tag like covering_male_chest, I suppose.

Yes, their would certainly be more noise. But we have this problem with other non-gender specific tags, too. ~~Searching for cum on male bodies (~1boy ~multiple_boys cum_on_body) is one such example.~~ Okay it is not. I just found the cum_on_boy tag. Apparently it is underused, so I'll do some tag gardening on ~1boy ~multiple_boys -1girl -multiple_girls cum_on_body -cum_on_boy.

To only get noise-free results in the above mentioned cases you would have to search for: ~1boy ~multiple_boys -1girl -multiple_girls cum_on_body or ~1boy ~multiple_boys -1girl -multiple_girls covering_chest

@☆♪: > NWF_Renim said: > > Here you go: ...Okay, it...

2017-04-23T17:26:42-04:00

NWF_Renim said:

Here you go: ...

Okay, it definitely wouldn't be correct to remove the tag from those just because they're boys. But I still think it's the case that most covering chest posts should really be covering breasts instead. Or, would it be enough to reverse the alias, so it didn't explicitly mention breasts? If you were searching for the male version specifically, I can think of covering_chest ~1boy ~multiple_boys and covering_chest male_focus but neither is perfect - the latter is better but male focus might not be tagged consistently enough for it to be useful. There would be more noise in those if covering_breasts were moved in to covering_chest. The alternative would be to have a separate tag like covering_male_chest, I suppose.

@user_509825: I think that this is mostly because it was not...

2017-04-23T17:13:40-04:00

I think that this is mostly because it was not requested.
The reason why it doesn't imply breasts is probably because the small_breast tag didn't imply breasts, until @reiyasona started the "Breast Reformation Thread".

To be honest, there is imo a difference and the tag should be gardened first. But maybe covering_nipples is already enough for flat chested girls.

@NWF_Renim: > ☆♪ said: > > [...] so unless someone has an...

2017-04-23T17:12:49-04:00

☆♪ said:

[...] so unless someone has an example [...]

Here you go: post #82490, post #1266425, post #1527811, post #1528203, post #1631056, post #1683310, post #1754095, post #2200410, post #2203469, post #2284750

@☆♪: covering breasts does not implicate breasts, so...

2017-04-23T17:10:46-04:00

covering breasts does not implicate breasts, so I think it could still be used with flat_chest.

@user_509825: I wouldn't use this for males at all. But what...

2017-04-23T17:08:54-04:00

I wouldn't use this for males at all.
But what is with covering_chest flat_chest?

EDIT: Only three pages. But it should be considered before going with this alias.

@☆♪: create alias covering_chest -> covering_breasts...

2017-04-23T17:07:09-04:00

create alias covering_chest -> covering_breasts

Link to alias

In practice I think this is a duplicate tag.

iridescent_slime said:

One might argue that covering chest should be kept as an alternative for male characters, but in practice, it appears to get used as a synonym of covering breasts.

I don't think male characters would have much reason to cover their chests, so unless someone has an example, I don't think it's worth having as a separate tag.

The tag alias covering_chest -> covering_breasts (alias #14696) has been rejected.