post #977947
post #1145505
Covering the nipple(s) alone when more could be covered.

I can see why this tag was deleted as it gets increasingly ambiguous with the breast size, but we made it clear in the past that tags shouldn't be deleted without prior forum discussions.

covering_breasts is a pretty broad tag and covering_nipples is a useful subset to have IMO.

I see a distinction between the two so +1 to the covering_nipples tag.

covering_nipples to me is intended for just that. The characters is only trying to cover their nipples and nothing more.

It's seems more sexual in nature.

covering_breasts on the other hand is the character trying to as best they can cover the entity of their breasts.

It's more of an embarrassment issue.

While neither is hard and fast and both are subjective, I do agree they are distinct enough concept wise.

Also the act of covering_breasts might not actually cover_nipples all of the time.

post #1153989

She is trying to hide her breasts but a nipple is exposed.

covering_nipples would implicate covering_breasts.
And yes, it's VERY subjective, as many characters have breasts too large to cover.

covering_breasts was originally used for covering with two hands, with the combo search breast_hold covering used for the one-armed variant. However this was admittedly unintuitive, and after a while I stopped caring to fix it.

So long as covering_nipples use the OP examples, as well as post #314475, post #337813, post #128309, and maybe post #251897, it should be fine.

Do they need to be covered by her hands or would something like post #841139 apply as well?

piespy said:
Do they need to be covered by her hands or would something like post #841139 apply as well?

I think that would apply.

After thinking on it some more, I changed my mind on adding post #337813, post #128309, and post #251897 to covering_nipples, since they're using their whole hands to cover the breasts, rather than the teasingly bare minimum to cover the nipples. Tagging a two-handed approach to covering breasts may be worthwhile, but it's beyond the scope of the proposed tag.

I went ahead and populated the tag according to discussion here.

Hope it wasn't too early, but even if it was it shouldn't be too hard to change everything.

Yeah, tag makes sense. And as Moose found, using whole hands would not apply. If they're using a whole hand they're already covering as much as they can.

What about images like post #1195135? With her left hand she is only covering the nipple, but at the same time she is using her whole right hand to cover the other breast.

I'd say if even one hand is covering only the nipples, then the tag is applicable. It's something I would want when searching anyway.

Also, requesting an implication: create implication covering_nipples -> covering_breasts

Reason: Specific subset of covering_breasts. This implication would also chain to covering as well.

Hmm, I don't know about that. While they're part of the breasts, it seems like covering_nipples would be used for a different purpose. Like, they're not really trying to cover the breasts as a whole, just obscuring a part of them.

Hillside_Moose said:
I'd say if even one hand is covering only the nipples, then the tag is applicable. It's something I would want when searching anyway.

Also, requesting an implication: create implication covering_nipples -> covering_breasts

Reason: Specific subset of covering_breasts. This implication would also chain to covering as well.

I disagree.

The nipples are part of the breasts yes, but they are still a distinct body part. Also the intent is different.

It would be like saying holding_nose should be a subset of holding_face.

Quickest example I could find.

I made my stance clear already, so just quoting myself.

S1eth said:
covering_nipples would implicate covering_breasts.

Covering_breasts is all about covering the nipples anyway.

I don't think it always works the other way around, though. Even if covering the breasts typically means trying to cover the nipples as well, covering only the nipples doesn't mean they're trying to cover the entire breast. It's like, even though covering_eyes can be used in a fashion similar to covering_face, you can't call all situations where the eyes are covered to also be covering_face just because the eyes are part of the face.

You say covering_eyes, he says holding_nose.
There's a difference between a breast and a face.
The nipple is the only feature of a breast you need to cover, a face has more than just eyes.

S1eth said:
You say covering_eyes, he says holding_nose.
There's a difference between a breast and a face.
The nipple is the only feature of a breast you need to cover, a face has more than just eyes.

Covering your face implies you are trying to hide the entirety of the parts. So does covering breasts.

Covering the nipples does not.

Also the areola are a visible part distinct of the nipples.

Hell just go with common usage. I don't think anyone else is actually trying to argue that covering your nipples is the same as covering your breasts.

As we have said, covering_nipples is only an attempt to cover that specific area of the breast while covering_breasts implies the person is trying to cover the whole of the breast even if they fail to fully cover the nipple.

It's like many other body parts. Elbow and arm, knuckles and fingers, fingers and hand.

Holding/covering a part does not imply the whole and should never.