Posted under Tags
Small breasts now implicate breasts (see bulk update 783 ).
There is a new tag for breasts that are larger than small breasts and smaller than large breasts. The tag is called medium_breasts and also implicates the breasts tag (see bulk update 783 ).
Definition adjusted (see forum #116682, forum #116683 and forum #119746).
Confusing aliases have been removed (see bulk update 797 ).
Updated
This post is outdated but still worth a read in my opinion. The up to date version is linked at the bottom of this post.
Small breasts are not treated in the same way as large breasts, huge breasts and gigantic breasts.
Every distinct breast size except small_breasts and flat_chest implicates breasts:
This is not very consistent.
It becomes even clearer when we take a look at the wiki page on small_breasts which warns: "However, do not use the breasts tag in conjunction with this tag unless they meet the definition of that tag, i.e. they are noticeable or the focus of the image: e.g. partially or fully exposed breasts, breast comparison, breast measuring, breast envy, etc."
The bigger breast sizes do not have this restriction.
Okay, time to give an example that puts everything together.
For this example let's assume we want to create a post with the following tags: 1girl, cum_on_breasts, nude, small_breasts
After the implicated tags have been added the resulting tags are: 1girl, breasts, cum, cum_on_breasts, nude, small_breasts
Now we have two new tags namely cum and ... oh well ... breasts. Apparently small breasts become the focus of the image when they have cum on them.
Joking aside, this behavior is caused by those kind of tags which describe appearances connected with breasts.
Here are two of them implicating breasts:
Create implication: small_breasts -> breasts (link to implication)
The breasts tag is used as both a generalization (above scenario) and a specialization (distinct breast size: "average medium breasts").
If a Danbooru user wants to search for media containing average medium sized breasts, he will have to use the blacklist or create a query with exclusions (e.g. breasts -flat_chest -small_breasts -large_breasts -huge_breasts -gigantic_breasts).
But this would also exclude posts with constellations like: multiple_girls, breasts, large_breasts : (
Creating an average_breasts medium_breasts tag would make this easier.
I'm referring to the above note on flat_chest -> breasts.
Treating a flat chest as breasts would eliminate unnecessary special solutions like flat_chest_grab.
Furthermore, one would be able to tag cum_on_breasts together with flat_chest without having to revert to more general tags like cum_on_upper_body that do not implicate breasts.
What's your take on this? : )
Notes:
[1] I am aware that a flat chest is in fact a colloquial description of undeveloped breasts. They are barley noticeable and therefore not considered breasts on Danbooru.
The Wiki page on flat_chest states: "The flat chest tag is mutually exclusive to the breasts tag, i.e. don't tag both unless another character in the picture meets the criteria for the breasts tag."
But this doesn't prevent complicated discussions on whether to use breast_grab or flat_chest_grab for a flat chest that is being grabbed.
---
Update 1: refer to forum #114820 (outdated)
Update 2: refer to forum #114847 (partly up to date)
Update 3: refer to forum #116330 (up to date)
Update 4: refer to forum #116365 (up to date)
Updated
NWF_Renim said:
There's no reason to have separate threads for an implication and its discussion, so the threads have been merged.
Unfortunately I created the initial topic prior to the implication request. I didn't know that such a request would result in the creation of a dedicated forum thread. Thanks for merging both!
Updated
reiyasona said:
Unfortunately I created the initial topic prior to the implication request. I didn't know that such a request would result in the creation of a dedicated forum thread. Thanks for merging both!
For future reference, with the bulk update function you can specify a thread for your alias/implication to be a part of.
As far as the implication goes, I'm kind of split on it. I use the small breasts tag only when it is clear that they are in fact small breasts, so usually they are exposed to some degree. Given that, I add the breasts tag as well.
However, with huge breasts and gigantic breasts, no exposure is necessary since the outline alone can help determine size, and since they are large they are of course a focus of the image, just like huge ass or wide hips make those body parts a focus of the image.
But, if someone tags a character with small breasts when they are not exposed, the breasts tag not should not normally be added since they are not the focus of the image, unless there is some kind of breast comparison or something else going on.
Examples of posts with small breasts which IMO should not get the breasts tag:
post #2358970
post #2356968
post #2356617
post #2355895
post #2353256
Updated
This post is outdated but still worth a read in my opinion.
BrokenEagle98 said:
For future reference, with the bulk update function you can specify a thread for your alias/implication to be a part of.
I'll keep this in mind.
BrokenEagle98 said:
I use the small breasts tag only when it is clear that they are in fact small breasts, so usually they are exposed to some degree. Given that, I add the breasts tag as well.
Okay, for the sake of my argumentation I am going to follow you on this logic. To make this a general rule, an image should only be tagged with the breasts tag when the breasts are a point (not necessarily the only point) of interest with high probability.
This is clearly a subjective assessment. The breasts tag is used as an alias for the hypothetical breast_focus tag.
BrokenEagle98 said:
However, with huge breasts and gigantic breasts, no exposure is necessary since the outline alone can help determine size, and since they are large they are of course a focus of the image, just like huge ass or wide hips make those body parts a focus of the image.
You convinced me here. Huge breasts and gigantic breasts are drawn so unnaturally or even grotesquely large that there is no excuse to refrain from using the breasts tag.
BrokenEagle98 said:
But, if someone tags a character with small breasts when they are not exposed, the breasts tag not should not normally be added since they are not the focus of the image, unless there is some kind of breast comparison or something else going on.
Examples of posts with small breasts which IMO should not get the breasts tag:
post #2358970
post #2356968
post #2356617
post #2355895
post #2353256
This is the point where I'll try to refute your argumentation. Yes, small breasts can or can not be a point of focus in the image depending on the presentation style or the content of an image. But the same is true for average breasts! In some rare cases even large breasts huge breasts could be introduced in an unimposing way (keyword: chubby women).
Let's do some comparisons based on your examples.
Comparison I:
Comparison II:
Comparison III:
Remember that all ratings here are still highly subjective. Not as subjective as the horrible long killed off sexy tag, though.
This is the core weakness of the breasts / breast_focus tag.
I come to the conclusion that I need to update the suggestions I made in the opening post.
Overall, I recommend the following changes to be made to the current breast tagging logic:
The advantages pointed out in my original post (refer to the "remaining issues" part) stay the same.
Updated
Yeah, there's a lot that you argue for that I won't refute. The breasts tag is way overused.
I'm going to still push back on the huge breasts tag. As a quick reference huge breasts are sized greater than the person's head. That's HUGE by any measure (sorry for stating the obvious). IMO once breasts exceed a certain size (i.e. huge), it doesn't matter how chubby the girl is, the breasts are going to be one of the key focus points for any person, especially for guys. It's just human nature.
BrokenEagle98 said:
I'm going to still push back on the huge breasts tag. As a quick reference huge breasts are sized greater than the person's head. That's HUGE by any measure (sorry for stating the obvious). IMO once breasts exceed a certain size (i.e. huge), it doesn't matter how chubby the girl is, the breasts are going to be one of the key focus points for any person, especially for guys. It's just human nature.
You are of course completely right. I accidently wrote huge breasts instead of large breasts. My apologies.
In my opinion we should keep the implication directed towards the breasts tag for both of them.
What I tried to touch on with the chubby women example was simply the idea that maybe bigger breasts would look more natural on a woman's body with a higher body fat percentage. Thus, would make the breasts less imposing in rare cases.
Updated
Yeah, but even with large breasts, I struggled to find pictures that didn't draw my eye immediately to their breasts, though I did find a potential few:
post #2147074 -behind
post #2152449 -behind
post #1635373 -behind
post #2133995 -front (looks average sized though)
post #2063566 -front (looks average sized though)
post #1972064 -front (looks average sized though)
post #1560970 -side
post #2079059 -borderline case
post #1717740 -borderline case
But since these are pretty rare, like you said, it makes more sense to keep the implication for anything larger than average sized.
I'll be completely honest. I haven't tagged small breasts on posts that don't focus on them in any way. It was never something I thought I should be doing.
BrokenEagle98 said:
Yeah, but even with large breasts, I struggled to find pictures that didn't draw my eye immediately to their breasts, though I did find a potential few:
Thanks for putting this to the test.
Borrator said:
I'll be completely honest. I haven't tagged small breasts on posts that don't focus on them in any way. It was never something I thought I should be doing.
To make this new breast tagging logic as user friendly as possible I am going to revise my proposal again.
This time I am putting up clear step-by-step instructions for changes that need to be made.
So why do I think this new logic is easy to understand and therefore user friendly?
Let me give you a few examples:
Now it's time to state your opinion or ask questions. Please also refer to my latest announcement (forum #116273).
Notes:
[1] The creation of this tag should be optional because of its subjective character (tag gardener's nightmare).
[2] Adding breast_focus to every post that is the result of the query breasts small_breasts -large_breasts -huge_breasts -gigantic_breasts is a bad idea because we can't be clear on the indented use of the tag in such constellations.
Updated
Borrator said:
Doesn't breasts become a truly useless tag then? Wouldn't it be better to have a disambiguation page for it, like we have for sakura?
Abandoning it would force a user to create queries like *breasts or even ~small_breasts ~average_breasts ~large_breasts ~huge_breasts ~gigantic_breasts only to list all images containing breasts.
Searching simply for ~1girl ~multiple_girls isn't cutting it.
In a post update scenario it would become the general tag indicating the overall presence of breasts. But logically speaking, you are right because this tag would then carry only redundant information.
Updated
reiyasona said:
- Add the average_breasts tag to every post that is the result of the query: breasts -small_breasts -large_breasts -huge_breasts -gigantic_breasts
Not every post tagged breasts without the preceding qualifier would be average breasts size, since some users might only add the breasts tag without specifying the size. I would say that amongst the query results for that particular search you would find small, large, huge and gigantic breasts. So tag gardening would be required to tag posts with the correct size. This could be done either before or after the mass update.
BrokenEagle98 said:
Not every post tagged breasts without the preceding qualifier would be average breasts size, since some users might only add the breasts tag without specifying the size. I would say that amongst the query results for that particular search you would find small, large, huge and gigantic breasts. So tag gardening would be required to tag posts with the correct size. This could be done either before or after the mass update.
Yes, tag gardening will be unavoidable in such cases because we are essentially adding missing information (new breast size) based on trust (correct use of breasts tag concerning size).
This operation also leaves some room for errors:
reiyasona said:
- Add the breast_focus tag to every post that is the result of the query [1]:
It's not as problematic, though, because of the tag's highly subjective character.
Updated
reiyasona said:
Searching simply for ~1girl ~multiple_girls isn't cutting it.
..What about ~1girl ~multiple_girls -flat_chest?
Borrator said:
..What about ~1girl ~multiple_girls -flat_chest?
This shall be your answer:
Those all contain from_behind but ok, I see your point
Plenty of examples that aren't from_behind as well like post #2348403
Just for the record, I canceled my outdated implication request for: small_breasts -> breasts
Reason: forum #115189
Updated
