tag:danbooru.me,2005:/forum_topics/4539belly = midriff = navel?2014-01-30T12:14:22-05:00tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/946802014-01-30T12:14:22-05:002014-01-30T12:14:22-05:00@Toks: > hungkok2007 said:
>
> Update: I wonder if...<blockquote>
<p>hungkok2007 said:</p>
<p>Update: I wonder if <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/stomach">stomach</a> shouldn't be reserved to describe the internal digestive organ? We already have <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/midriff">midriff</a> and <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/belly">belly</a>...</p>
</blockquote><p>I agree that the stomach tag doesn't seem useful in its current state.</p><p>Though trying to use it for just the digestive organ is probably going to result in people misusing the tag. If we want a tag for that then maybe call it <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/stomach_%28organ%29">stomach_(organ)</a>.</p>Toks/users/356497tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/946752014-01-30T10:31:14-05:002014-01-30T10:31:14-05:00@hungkok2007: Update: I wonder if stomach shouldn't be...<p>Update: I wonder if <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/stomach">stomach</a> shouldn't be reserved to describe the internal digestive organ? We already have <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/midriff">midriff</a> and <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/belly">belly</a>...</p>hungkok2007/users/95625tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/453952010-07-28T03:49:24-04:002010-07-28T03:49:24-04:00@hungkok2007: > sgcdonmai said:I do think belly would be...<blockquote>
<p>sgcdonmai said:I do think <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/belly">belly</a> would be appropriate where there's a bit of <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/plump">plumpness</a>. <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/midriff">midriff</a> should be used when said area is bare and fit.</p>
<p>Most of the images currently tagged <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/belly">belly</a> clearly should have <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/midriff">midriff</a> instead, so I'll go ahead and edit them.</p>
</blockquote><p>Thanks! I agree with that definition and have edited the wiki page for <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/belly">belly</a> accordingly.</p>hungkok2007/users/95625tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/453102010-07-26T15:03:25-04:002010-07-26T15:03:25-04:00@sgcdonmai: Mm, generally speaking, having defined abs...<p>Mm, generally speaking, having defined <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/abs">abs</a> doesn't connotate the same degree of muscle definition that the <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/muscle">muscle</a> tag usually implies.</p><p>When I think of the <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/muscle">muscle</a> tag, what comes to mind is "dedicated body-builder".</p><p>The <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/abs">abs</a> tag kinda exists on a different wavelength, to my mind.</p><p>To bring it back on-topic, I do think <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/belly">belly</a> would be appropriate where there's a bit of <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/plump">plumpness</a>. <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/midriff">midriff</a> should be used when said area is bare and fit.</p><p>Most of the images currently tagged <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/belly">belly</a> clearly should have <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/midriff">midriff</a> instead, so I'll go ahead and edit them.</p>sgcdonmai/users/21085tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/452352010-07-25T15:39:36-04:002010-07-25T15:40:41-04:00@Xabid: This brings up something related that I wanted...<p>This brings up something related that I wanted to ask about:</p><p>At the moment, <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/abs">abs</a> defines itself only as toned, muscular abs. But some things are being put in there that don't fit that.</p><p>First, should <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/abs">abs</a> imply <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/muscle">muscle</a>, or are the two for different degrees of muscle (so they won't always overlap?)</p><p>Second, should abs perhaps be changed to <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link dtext-wiki-does-not-exist dtext-tag-empty" href="/wiki_pages/toned_abs" title="This wiki page does not have a tag">toned abs</a>, for clarity?</p><p>Anyway, it seems worth mentioning, when discussing how to divide up the tags that have to do with that part of the body.</p>Xabid/users/100754tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/452332010-07-25T14:36:08-04:002010-07-25T14:36:08-04:00@cleartailcat: I usually think of the term belly as a stomach...<p>I usually think of the term belly as a stomach with a little bulge or sag for characters that are more <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/plump">plump</a>, but most of the images seemed to be tagged for showing the naval area. I think it should either be aliased to midriff or have the definition changed to separate it from navel.</p>cleartailcat/users/104965tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/451772010-07-25T03:26:56-04:002010-07-28T03:49:24-04:00@hungkok2007: I find "belly" more of a juvenile type term...<p>I find "belly" more of a juvenile type term which is also quite vague. There are more specific tags such as abs, midriff, navel etc. which I find more suitable.</p><p>Any call for aliasing?</p>hungkok2007/users/95625