pantyshot implications

BUR #2439 has been rejected.

create implication pantyshot_(jumping) -> pantyshot
create implication pantyshot_(jumping) -> jumping
create implication pantyshot_(kicking) -> pantyshot
create implication pantyshot_(kicking) -> kicking

Reason: Missing implications, consistent with the rest of the pantyshot_(*) tags.

EDIT: The bulk update request #2439 (forum #164852) has been rejected by @nonamethanks.

Also should pantyshot (one knee) be moved to pantyshot (kneeling) + one knee, or does it deserve its own tag?

As reference:

topic #12803
topic #12551
topic #8247

Well, seeing the discussion in the topics linked by Provence, I agree with nuking the pantyshot_* tags if everyone else agrees.

nonamethanks said:

Well, seeing the discussion in the topics linked by Provence, I agree with nuking the pantyshot_* tags if everyone else agrees.

I havent seen anyone object to nuking before, I say cut them.

The bulk update request #2439 (forum #164852) has been rejected by @nonamethanks.

BUR #2440 has been approved by @evazion.

Reason: Well, let's try this then.

These are all the existing pantyshot tags.
It's better to not turn the implications into aliases, that way the posts that still get tagged as such can be manually moved to both tags.

EDIT: The bulk update request #2440 (forum #164859) has been approved by @evazion.

Having less tags is a good idea.

At the very least pantyshot_(reflection) is poorly encompassed by a pantyshot reflection search, which is filled with stuff like post #1295352. It is thus inherently different from all the others on that list which are just pose + pantyshot.

I also think there should be a tag specifically for pantyshots caused by the front of the skirt being lifted* such as by sitting or squatting or wind lift, if we can come up with decent names for them, even if not for different postures.

*or just a general tag for the front of the skirt being lifted in this manner, whether there are panties or not

skylightcrystal said:

At the very least pantyshot_(reflection) is poorly encompassed by a pantyshot reflection search, which is filled with stuff like post #1295352. It is thus inherently different from all the others on that list which are just pose + pantyshot.

If such a tag should exist, it should be named differently. Something like "pantyshot_through_reflection"?
I've removed it from the list, so it can be handled separately.

I also think there should be a tag specifically for pantyshots caused by the front of the skirt being lifted* such as by sitting or squatting or wind lift, if we can come up with decent names for them, even if not for different postures.

"frontal pantyshot"?

I don't really see the need of these tags so I'll +1 for nuking them.

This thread took way too long to make. Why are there even individual, specific pantyshot tags? And for so long. It's not like any of them change the fact that they're clearly pantyshots. Hah.

These tags are indeed made redundant simply by searching for both of the words that make each one up. +1 to being rid of them.

nonamethanks said:

If such a tag should exist, it should be named differently. Something like "pantyshot_through_reflection"?
I've removed it from the list, so it can be handled separately.

“indirect_pantyshot”, which could also cover cases of a pantyshot only visible on a camera’s viewfinder?

skylightcrystal said:

I also think there should be a tag specifically for pantyshots caused by the front of the skirt being lifted* such as by sitting or squatting or wind lift, if we can come up with decent names for them, even if not for different postures.

*or just a general tag for the front of the skirt being lifted in this manner, whether there are panties or not

Aren't we already specifically getting rid of the tags that serve that exact purpose? If none of the other pantyshot tags are needed, then there's no reason to keep ones specifically for sitting/squatting, unless I'm just not understanding the suggestion here. Pantyshot/skirt_lift+sitting/squatting/wind_lift should already cover these situations with or without panties.

A tag just for the front of the skirt being lifted also seems needlessly specific. Why not one for the back, then, or the sides? Are frontal pantyshots so much more/less common than the others that they need a tag specific to them?

kittey said:

“indirect_pantyshot”, which could also cover cases of a pantyshot only visible on a camera’s viewfinder?

"indirect_pantyshot" sounds like a good tag name. But what examples would there be other than reflections?

blindVigil said:

Aren't we already specifically getting rid of the tags that serve that exact purpose? If none of the other pantyshot tags are needed, then there's no reason to keep ones specifically for sitting/squatting, unless I'm just not understanding the suggestion here. Pantyshot/skirt_lift+sitting/squatting/wind_lift should already cover these situations with or without panties.

A tag just for the front of the skirt being lifted also seems needlessly specific. Why not one for the back, then, or the sides? Are frontal pantyshots so much more/less common than the others that they need a tag specific to them?

As I understand it what the point of this thread is to get rid of is the needless proliferation of pantyshot_(posture) tags. The use of these tags to find what I am describing is, as I see it, one of their main purposes (certainly the only thing I've used them for), and one that I am trying to preserve. There's already quite a lot of noise as it is when using these tags to find such images, though, and adding in a considerable amount more will make it barely workable.

I actually wasn't thinking about stuff like wind lift or skirt lift at all (the former would only very rarely create this effect), but for images where the legs themselves are lifting up the skirt* (whether the person realises it or not), which usually results in a pantyshot. This can be done from the sides with split and high kick (the original intention was not to include these images as they are inherently different from something like post #3808157 which was the main point of the tag, but I'm coming around to the idea of including them purely on the basis that it would make the resulting tag more workable) but not from the back.

The majority of pantyshot (squatting), pantyshot (sitting), pantyshot (kneeling) and pantyshot (one knee) images are of such an effect, and pantyshot_(kicking) has a sizeable proportion, too. Between them they also probably cover most examples of what I am talking about. This makes them useful in the absence of an actual tag for this.

*and we're talking properly lifted, not stuff like post #3847821

skylightcrystal said:

That is literally what this thread is aimed at: Removing unnecessarily specific tags that aren't justified enough to exist on their own. As I stated in my quick comment, the method and/or cause of a pantyshot doesn't change its definition or presence, a pantyshot is a pantyshot. Pantyshot_(sitting) and pantyshot_(one_knee) for example don't have anything special or unique about them to make them have their own personal tags, they're just simple position/movement changes.

The means of its occurrence doesn't affect the final tag used nor its definition and even if they were cases of different positions or actions/conditions other than your standard stand on two legs or bent_over it'd still be normally accompanied by their respective tags eg. pantyshot + squatting/sitting. In fact, the existence of such specific tags not only clutter the list but also overcomplicate and make no sense practically as it is extremely and evidently redundant to add pantyshot_(squatting) when there's also the literal appearance of pantyshot and squatting individually.

skylightcrystal said:

The majority of pantyshot (squatting), pantyshot (sitting), pantyshot (kneeling) and pantyshot (one knee) images are of such an effect, and pantyshot_(kicking) has a sizeable proportion, too. Between them they also probably cover most examples of what I am talking about. This makes them useful in the absence of an actual tag for this.

*and we're talking properly lifted, not stuff like post #3847821

Not sure I understand correctly, but would pantyshot -from_behind -from_side work? It'd probably be easier to garden that search than a new tag if it's equivalent to what you had in mind.

skylightcrystal said:

The majority of pantyshot (squatting), pantyshot (sitting), pantyshot (kneeling) and pantyshot (one knee) images are of such an effect, and pantyshot_(kicking) has a sizeable proportion, too. Between them they also probably cover most examples of what I am talking about. This makes them useful in the absence of an actual tag for this.

*and we're talking properly lifted, not stuff like post #3847821

So we've already established that the tags you just listed are already covered by a pantyshot+postion/action search, making them pointless, and by your own admission these tags that have been established as unneeded are majority filled with images matching what you're trying to create a new tag for, which would mean that this new tag is itself replaceable by a few simple searches.

So the idea here is ultimately to create a tag that's basically just 5+ tags we're throwing away combined into one pointless tag? Because we specifically need a tag that covers frontal pantyshots where the skirt is lifted up just a bit more than normal?

nonamethanks said:

Not sure I understand correctly, but would pantyshot -from_behind -from_side work? It'd probably be easier to garden that search than a new tag if it's equivalent to what you had in mind.

You'd need to add -from_below and -lying to that, then tag up from below to the point where it includes stuff like post #3841557, as well as tag up all the tags perfectly (which is several hundred thousand tag additions for each of the from_x tags), and add them to stuff like comics and images where some but not all characters are viewed from that angle (which the tags are typically not used on at present). Then you've still got it littered with stuff like post #3825099... whilst removing a large number of images that you.

マローダー said:

As I stated in my quick comment, the method and/or cause of a pantyshot doesn't change its definition or presence, a pantyshot is a pantyshot.

Not sure how that's relevant. Noone is talking about removing the pantyshot tag. Nor am I talking about preserving the pantyshot_(sitting) and pantyshot_(squatting) tags. What I'm wanting, though, is to preserve a use that I have put them to, or better yet create a single (yes, just one - so not really "cluttering the list") new tag that is specifically for that thing and thus serves what I want better than these tags do, as they really don't serve it very well already (they're just the best that we've got) and would be served significantly worse by doing combination search instead.

But hey, it seems some of you guys would rather reduce the functionality of the site's search feature than have one new tag created and bashing random straw men that I'd already given the counterargument to in order to do so. I'm clearly not going to win you around. (note: this last paragraph is aimed primarily at the post above mine)