BUR #15326 has been rejected.
create alias breast_cutout -> breastless_clothes
same thing, breast cutout is just redundant as a separate tag
Updated
Posted under Tags
BUR #15326 has been rejected.
create alias breast_cutout -> breastless_clothes
same thing, breast cutout is just redundant as a separate tag
Updated
breastless clothes seems like a padding tag. It gets tagged on stuff like post #6073556, post #6067519, post #5989099, post #5924520, post #5924050 and so on. It's a real mess.
I'd either alias breastless clothes to breast cutout or deprecate it, because otherwise it's just breasts out.
BUR #15356 has been rejected.
create alias breastless_clothes -> breast_cutout
nonamethanks said:
breastless clothes seems like a padding tag. It gets tagged on stuff like post #6073556, post #6067519, post #5989099, post #5924520, post #5924050 and so on. It's a real mess.
I'd either alias breastless clothes to breast cutout or deprecate it, because otherwise it's just breasts out.
good point, didn't realize it was so common for people to tag it on obvious cases like shrug
so as suggested, reverse alias request
Not all of them are cutouts, ex. post #5200153. breastless clothes was intentionally broad to fit any otherwise-normal clothes that deliberately didn't cover the breasts.
A breast_cutout -> breastless_clothes implication might work, but I've noticed someone tagging breast_cutout on i-13_(kancolle) posts, when framed_breasts would've been more appropriate.
Hillside_Moose said:
A breast_cutout -> breastless_clothes implication might work, but I've noticed someone tagging breast_cutout on i-13_(kancolle) posts, when framed_breasts would've been more appropriate.
to be honest i didn't even know myself about the existence of the framed breasts tag, also not sure if it is an issue as the framed_breasts wiki says it can overlap with breastless clothes, implying that breastless_clothes (and therefore also breast cutout) can also apply to cases where the breasts are still covered by another garment/fabric, unless i'm misunderstanding it and the actual cases where both framed breasts and breastless clothes apply are only the ones that have bare uncovered breasts within breast_cutout specifically?
Isn't the whole point of framed breasts that the breasts are not exposed? In which case the overlap only exists where breastless clothes are worn over some other clothing which covered the breasts - basically where the framing effect comes from two different pieces of clothing rather than one.
BUR #16158 has been rejected.
create implication breast_cutout -> breastless_clothes
as proposed above
The bulk update request #15326 (forum #234093) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.
I think that breast_cutout is more of pointless tag with the images tagged under it having better defined and fitting tags. The only way I could see it working better is for images that would have been tagged breastless_clothes if it hadn't been for another layer of clothes covering the breasts in some form.
Updated
Kommandant said:
I think that breast_cutout is more of pointless tag with the images tagged under it having better defined and fitting tags. The only way I could see it working better is for images that would have been tagged breastless_clothes if it hadn't been for another layer of clothes covering the breasts in some form.
breastless clothes is for any clothing that exposes the breasts; breast cutout is when the breast portion of the clothes are cutout, which is one of several ways of getting breastless clothes, and one which creates a distinct aesthetic that isn't shared with other kinds of breastless clothes, so I'm not even sure where you're getting your argument from.
Neither post #5505329 nor post #5500881 would be breast cutout, for instance.
The bulk update request #15356 (forum #234239) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.
The bulk update request #16158 (forum #238114) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.