zettai_ryouiki and shorts

@richie: > BrokenEagle98 said: > > it's good to have...

2017-11-20T19:48:06-05:00

BrokenEagle98 said:

it's good to have solid definite boundaries

You ask, you shall receive: a thighhighs(over kneehighs)/bare thighs (part of legs between knees and buttocks)/outer (not underwear) clothes combination. No visible panties, underwear or parts of body usually kept under clothes (ass, hips, pussy etc).

chinatsu said:

Should it apply in this case (NSFW/Guro: post #2929789) and other such instances where there's a shirt with no_pants?

But it looks to me this no_pants tag applies to the girl on the left anyway, the one from right has legit ZR (her uniform is doing fine job covering everything that should be covered).

@user_525419: > chinatsu said: > > Should it apply in this...

2017-11-19T09:22:35-05:00

chinatsu said:

Should it apply in this case (NSFW/Guro: post #2929789) and other such instances where there's a shirt with no_pants?

I guess every item that can look like a dress/skirt should fit here.
that still does exclude shorts, but it does include short kimonos and skimpy outfits like these. A dress shirt would also fit if it's long enough.

@chilled_sake: Should it apply in this case (NSFW/Guro: post...

2017-11-19T07:10:48-05:00

Should it apply in this case (NSFW/Guro: post #2929789) and other such instances where there's a shirt with no_pants?

@BrokenEagle98: > kuuderes_shadow said: > > If we're going to...

2017-11-18T18:52:56-05:00

kuuderes_shadow said:

If we're going to include when the effect is created by shorts, should we include images where the effect is created by any other clothing as well? (eg. post #2399448)

Actually, that could be almost qualified as a short dress, or perhaps even a microdress.

@user_441999: If we're going to include when the effect is...

2017-11-18T09:28:06-05:00

If we're going to include when the effect is created by shorts, should we include images where the effect is created by any other clothing as well? (eg. post #2399448)

@EB: It's always felt to me like it still counts as...

2017-11-16T22:36:50-05:00

It's always felt to me like it still counts as zettai ryouiki even if it's shorts, even long before I saw Nana Maru San Batsu. From a "tag what you see" perspective, it makes sense as the area of skin is similar either way. Though looking at how I've tagged my own uploads in the past, it does seem I've used caution with shorts more than I've actually tagged it. Instances where I have like post #1141927 and post #2450761 were cleaned off (rather quickly in the latter instance, but not in the previous one).

@BrokenEagle98: > richie said: > > And sometimes we even have...

2017-11-16T20:10:37-05:00

richie said:

And sometimes we even have something like post #2854039 or post #1017245.

I personally don't consider either of those zettai ryouiki... the first one because its too low... the second one because she's sitting down and her skirt is covering up too much. That why it's good to have solid definite boundaries. Skirts do have a good working definition of what compromises a skirt length. Therefore if we stick with miniskirt/short shorts, then we will limit the downwards creep of what is considered absolute territory, migrating it from a subjective to more of an objective call.

@richie: I can't say how exactly parentheses works in...

2017-11-16T19:34:02-05:00

I can't say how exactly parentheses works in Japanese for sure, but for me this is simply added to exclude such kind of shorts like in for example post #2923689. On the other hand it's hard to imagine ZR possible in such case so it's kinda redundant.
I think it's very similar with skirts. In most definitions skirts and miniskirts are terms which are both used and freely exchanged. At danbooru we have thousands of ZR posts which are tagged by skirt only. And sometimes we even have something like post #2854039 or post #1017245.

@BrokenEagle98: > richie said: > > Well not quite, as ショートパンツ...

2017-11-16T13:32:23-05:00

richie said:

Well not quite, as ショートパンツ (shooto pantsu/short pants) should be translated simply as shorts, not short shorts.
https://www.google.pl/search?q=%E3%82%B7%E3%83%A7%E3%83%BC%E3%83%88%E3%83%91%E3%83%B3%E3%83%84&tbm=isch

On the other hand ホットパンツ (hotto pantsu/hot pants) are more the equivalent of what is been called here short_shorts.
https://www.google.pl/search?q=%E3%83%9B%E3%83%83%E3%83%88%E3%83%91%E3%83%B3%E3%83%84&tbm=isch

Pixivpedia mentions both of them, so it mean something like "shorts (with emphasis on short_shorts)"

Yes, I understood that the first term meant shorts, and the part in parentheses meant short shorts. Now I don't know quite how phraseology works in Japan, but at least with English the part in parentheses is usually a clarifier.

Regardless, it makes more sense if shorts are of the same length as miniskirts (i.e. short shorts), as both would then present the same visual framing of the bottoms (short shorts/miniskirt), skin area (zettai ryouiki), then thighhighs.

@richie: > BrokenEagle98 said: > > One clarification...

2017-11-16T12:37:48-05:00

BrokenEagle98 said:

One clarification that adds to the discussion is that at least for the Pixiv community, it applies only to short shorts and not regular shorts, just like for skirts it only applies to miniskirts and not medium or long skirts.

Well not quite, as ショートパンツ (shooto pantsu/short pants) should be translated simply as shorts, not short shorts.
https://www.google.pl/search?q=%E3%82%B7%E3%83%A7%E3%83%BC%E3%83%88%E3%83%91%E3%83%B3%E3%83%84&tbm=isch

On the other hand ホットパンツ (hotto pantsu/hot pants) are more the equivalent of what is been called here short_shorts.
https://www.google.pl/search?q=%E3%83%9B%E3%83%83%E3%83%88%E3%83%91%E3%83%B3%E3%83%84&tbm=isch

Pixivpedia mentions both of them, so it mean something like "shorts (with emphasis on short_shorts)"

@BrokenEagle98: > Pixivpedia: Zettai ryouiki > >...

2017-11-13T15:03:45-05:00

Pixivpedia: Zettai ryouiki

近年はショートパンツ(ホットパンツ)とサイハイソックスの間に発生するものも絶対領域と呼ばれる場合がある。

Translation:

In recent years, the area between short shorts and thighhighs may also be called zettai ryouiki.

One clarification that adds to the discussion is that at least for the Pixiv community, it applies only to short shorts and not regular shorts, just like for skirts it only applies to miniskirts and not medium or long skirts.

So I guess the question is, are tag definitions rigid or flexible? I'm more inclined to the latter myself.

@G-SANtos: If Japanese Wikipedia states zettai ryouiki...

2017-11-13T14:23:21-05:00

If Japanese Wikipedia states zettai ryouiki applies to shorts, and an anime blatatly tells the same thing right in your face, then we should have the tag also applying to shorts. I'm indifferent to extra tags to specify skirt or shorts.

@richie: > nonamethanks said: > > Is a "zettai ryouiki...

2017-11-13T13:34:45-05:00

nonamethanks said:

Is a "zettai ryouiki for shorts" tag even necessary? I was under the impression that the tag existed as a subset to help point out a specific area of skin that does not always stay in view, due to the variable length of skirts and their tendency to float and allow for pantyshots.

Uhmmm... the ZR area (thighs) always stay more or less in view, and the moment skirt floats and you could see pantyshot or any other "forbidden areas" (i.e erogenous ones and all these which you never usually expose in public) then it's no longer zettai_ryouiki.

The shorts equivalent can already be found through the search "thighhighs shorts" (and fine-grained with thighhighs shorts solo -short_shorts if one wants to be anal about it)

Thank you for your generous offer, allow me to return the favor with simple "zettai_ryouiki -shorts" search proposal, fine-grained with extra solo tag maybe? :)

because shorts in the nearly absolute majority of the cases do not allow for pantyshots and don't really do anything else other than stay in their place, unlike skirts/dresses.

...and? Like I said, ZR area stays in place. That's exactly why there is no big deal of difference between shorts, skirts or dresses. In fact, sometimes you can't be sure what kind of cloth someone wears, and still you can see that ZR is valid there.

@user_525419: > richie said: > > In fact, I have the right...

2017-11-13T12:46:26-05:00

richie said:

In fact, I have the right to go ahead and reverse all the changes,

If you want to get a warning for tag vandalism, then do it.
In fact, don'T try to be so pushy. I'm sure you'll find more agreement this way and not with attacking others.

@richie: > nonamethanks said: > > As someone already...

2017-11-13T12:40:06-05:00

nonamethanks said:

As someone already pointed out, these changes follow a well enstablished consesus that's been in place for the past five years minimum.

As I've pointed out, there was no such consensus...

It stands to YOU to try and justify why they are wrong.

...hence, I even don't have to try anything (though as a matter of fact I did, and haven't heard a SINGLE merithoric argument against my case yet)
In fact, I have the right to go ahead and reverse all the changes, the only reason I'm not doing it is because it's not my responsibility to do that. Plus I'm too lazy for this... for now.

Here's an example of times when people have talked about the tag:

forum #137117
forum #113428 and forum #113436

Yes, that's exactly what I was mentioning earlier. Same few people reaching "consensus" in hidden topic in a good old kangaroo court style.

topic #9838 where there was absolutely no mention of shorts.

Because it was a topic about differences between over-kneehighs and kneehighs?

And it should be pointed out that danbooru doesn't religiously follow pixiv tags,

Well, that's good, because the quote I posted was straight from japanese wikipedia.
BTW, does danbooru community sometimes listen or watch how certain terms are explained in your face by japanese animators in japanese anime?

kittey said:

Last year, a clarification was added to the wiki in an attempt to curb mistagging. The wiki always mentioned skirts being a requirement, implying that shorts didn’t qualify.

Except the wiki didn't mention dress either....

As it’s been tagged on shorts anyway, the implicit exclusion obviously didn’t do the job and the clarification was added to explicitly exclude shorts. No tag usage policy was changed,

If that was the case, then the clarification would be also needed for dresses. With explicitly excluding them too, of course.
As we all know, this hasn't happened. Why? Because both dresses and shorts were inexplicitly allowed. Skirt is the very original, primary definition, but with all these years the term has evolved and both dresses and shorts are tolerated, and it's not since yesterday. And *this* is a real consensus, which result we can observe in the movie I've linked in my first post.

Edit: On another note, I guess we could introduce zettai_ryouiki_skirt (also applies to dresses, maybe pre-emptively alias zettai_ryouiki_dress to it) and zettai_ryouiki_shorts and implicate both to zettai_ryouiki? They are easily objectively taggable concepts and zettai_ryouiki_skirt can easily be populated by adding it to all current zettai_ryouiki posts. Better tag names are welcome, but these group nicely in the tag list on a post.

I have no problem with this, as long zettai_ryouiki_shorts will be implicated to zettai_ryouiki.

@nonamethanks: > kittey said: > > Last year, a clarification...

2017-11-13T12:28:55-05:00

kittey said:

Last year, a clarification was added to the wiki in an attempt to curb mistagging. The wiki always mentioned skirts being a requirement, implying that shorts didn’t qualify. As it’s been tagged on shorts anyway, the implicit exclusion obviously didn’t do the job and the clarification was added to explicitly exclude shorts. No tag usage policy was changed, just made clearer, which is what the wiki is there for.

Edit: On another note, I guess we could introduce zettai_ryouiki_skirt (also applies to dresses, maybe pre-emptively alias zettai_ryouiki_dress to it) and zettai_ryouiki_shorts and implicate both to zettai_ryouiki? They are easily objectively taggable concepts and zettai_ryouiki_skirt can easily be populated by adding it to all current zettai_ryouiki posts. Better tag names are welcome, but these group nicely in the tag list on a post.

Is a "zettai ryouiki for shorts" tag even necessary? I was under the impression that the tag existed as a subset to help point out a specific area of skin that does not always stay in view, due to the variable length of skirts and their tendency to float and allow for pantyshots. The shorts equivalent can already be found through the search "thighhighs shorts" (and fine-grained with thighhighs shorts solo -short_shorts if one wants to be anal about it), because shorts in the nearly absolute majority of the cases do not allow for pantyshots and don't really do anything else other than stay in their place, unlike skirts/dresses.

Edit: We also have upshorts to further make the above search more precise.

@kittey: > richie said: > > So what it's been last...

2017-11-13T11:38:18-05:00

richie said:

So what it's been last year?

Last year, a clarification was added to the wiki in an attempt to curb mistagging. The wiki always mentioned skirts being a requirement, implying that shorts didn’t qualify. As it’s been tagged on shorts anyway, the implicit exclusion obviously didn’t do the job and the clarification was added to explicitly exclude shorts. No tag usage policy was changed, just made clearer, which is what the wiki is there for.

Edit: On another note, I guess we could introduce zettai_ryouiki_skirt (also applies to dresses, maybe pre-emptively alias zettai_ryouiki_dress to it) and zettai_ryouiki_shorts and implicate both to zettai_ryouiki? They are easily objectively taggable concepts and zettai_ryouiki_skirt can easily be populated by adding it to all current zettai_ryouiki posts. Better tag names are welcome, but these group nicely in the tag list on a post.

Edit 2, after nonamethanks’ reply: You’re right. Nvm.

@nonamethanks: I assume you are talking about me, since I went...

2017-11-13T10:53:30-05:00

I assume you are talking about me, since I went and removed that tag from some dozen posts yesterday, and your example picture in the opening post was one of those I edited.

Right after the premature and not properly discussed changes are reversed.

As someone already pointed out, these changes follow a well enstablished consesus that's been in place for the past five years minimum. It stands to YOU to try and justify why they are wrong. Until then, people will follow what the consensus says, and the wiki pages are usually written to reflect the consensus on the site.

Here's an example of times when people have talked about the tag:

forum #137117
forum #113428 and forum #113436
topic #9838 where there was absolutely no mention of shorts.

If you were really lurking for many years you should've paid better attention.

And it should be pointed out that danbooru doesn't religiously follow pixiv tags, otherwise we'd have to tag all the fate characters as fate/grand order. Artists tag their posts for maximum exposure, not for accuracy.

As a side note, attacking other users doesn't really help your case, and if anything it makes them more likely to reject your points on the basis that you're being arrogant about it.

@richie: > Chiera said: > > This "criminal" act was...

2017-11-13T10:41:00-05:00

Chiera said:

This "criminal" act was commited nearly 2 years ago and the tags where used pretty well until this date.

EDIT: They were pretty well used until this date, but then they were pretty bad "cleaned" afterwards.

kuuderes_shadow said:

The wiki has specifically referred to skirts since the second ever edit on 24th May 2006. The wiki edit stating that it does apply to shorts lasted for all of about an hour before the same person who added that line edited it to say that it doesn't apply to shorts. And this was last year, so not recently either.

So what it's been last year? Like I said, the "discussion" about that was hidden in other thread, there were no open discussion about this where I (for example) could take part, especially in lurking mode I'm here for many years now.

There was even a thread made 8 years ago attempting to implicate zettai ryouiki to skirt, which was rejected on the basis that it can apply to dresses as well - noone even mentioned shorts.

...which still doesn't imply shorts are explicitely forbidden!
Most ZR definitions are saying about skirt, they don't mention the dress - does it mean, dresses are forbidden...?

See also topic #8720, which you'll note was 5 years ago, at which point zettai ryouiki not being used on shorts was already well established and generally agreed.

Excuse me? Are we both using the same english? The whole discussion was in fact how to properly distinct panties/underwear from shorts, because the first one are illegal for ZR indeed. In fact, there is no bigger proof that ZR with shorts were acceptable because if not then really we'd have absolutely nothing to argue about.

And as for two last "establishing" quotes from that thread :
"The pixpedia article does mention that some cases exist in recent years in which the same with short_pants has also been called zettai_ryouiki"
"But I wouldn't care either way if it gets tagged anyway"

So where is your "well established and generally agreed" thing about this, huh?

the change from how the tag has always been.

...in your dreams, I guess.
We can talk, sure. Right after the premature and not properly discussed changes are reversed.

@BrokenEagle98: I would agree that topic #12251 does get used...

2017-11-12T17:33:04-05:00

I would agree that topic #12251 does get used too often for tag discussions, when really they should go in their own topic. I've tried to do this when I notice such going on, but I don't monitor that thread all the time.