Make Long Sidelocks implicate Sidelocks

BUR #30693 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

create implication long_sidelocks -> sidelocks

I believe this implication will, if approved, make it easier to find posts with long_sidelocks, but not sidelocks as said posts would now have the former tag. At the time of writing this, 463 posts have long_sidelocks, but only 259 of them also have sidelocks. The precedent for this BUR is that tags like absurdly_long_hair and very_long_hair implicate long_hair; the numerous clothing types and their colour or pattern versions; the breast size tags implicating breasts; et cetera.

Notice for moderators:
I know this is my second BUR in the last 24 hours, but it will be my last for a long time.

DiscreteActor said:

Notice for moderators:
I know this is my second BUR in the last 24 hours, but it will be my last for a long time.

You can make as many as you want as long as they're not wasting people's time. Long sidelocks implying sidelocks makes sense if the tag is to be kept, so by making this BUR you are inviting that discussion which is good.

Personally, I've never come accross this tag. It does seem useful, but at the same time there's a lot of untagged posts out there.

岩戸鈴芽 said:

You can make as many as you want as long as they're not wasting people's time. Long sidelocks implying sidelocks makes sense if the tag is to be kept, so by making this BUR you are inviting that discussion which is good.

Personally, I've never come accross this tag. It does seem useful, but at the same time there's a lot of untagged posts out there.

For my next BUR, which will be after I finish gardening about 1.6K - 1.8K posts, I'll be sure to start a forum topic before the BUR, but that won't be for at least a few months.

There certainly are plenty of posts missing long_sidelocks (and for that matter, sidelocks, too), and I discovered very_long_sidelocks after making this BUR, so perhaps that should be discussed here too. I recall there was some discussion of sidelocks-related tags on the Discord server earlier today (my time zone), but I believe that was more about the usefulness of [length]_sidelocks, not this implication.

I meh'd because I'm skeptical about expanding sidelocks into yet another family of tags that few people care to distinguish between and will instead autopilot based on their own assumptions. Most of the offshoot bangs tags —potentially the closest example— are in my experience a random salad bowl of taggers' opinions.

In its current state only male haircuts and hair behind ear prevent sidelocks from becoming bangs v2, so while mirroring the precedent and proceeding with short sidelocks, long sidelocks, very long sidelocks, etc. has utility, it's a question of whether that utility is worth enough to bother with the risk of these tags being overrun into uselessness.

If they are indeed split, then we should also address the issue of sidelocks: will it be treated as a parent tag or be sent the way of the dinosaurs in true bangs fashion? I'm leaning towards the former because a) sidelocks is not quite as egregious as bangs, and b) long sidelocks, if kept, would easily become a replacement for the overwhelmingly common sight that is "sidelocks between the ear to chin" anyways.

John_Fantasy_XIV said:

I meh'd because I'm skeptical about expanding sidelocks into yet another family of tags that few people care to distinguish between and will instead autopilot based on their own assumptions. Most of the offshoot bangs tags —potentially the closest example— are in my experience a random salad bowl of taggers' opinions.

In its current state only male haircuts and hair behind ear prevent sidelocks from becoming bangs v2, so while mirroring the precedent and proceeding with short sidelocks, long sidelocks, very long sidelocks, etc. has utility, it's a question of whether that utility is worth enough to bother with the risk of these tags being overrun into uselessness.

If they are indeed split, then we should also address the issue of sidelocks: will it be treated as a parent tag or be sent the way of the dinosaurs in true bangs fashion? I'm leaning towards the former because a) sidelocks is not quite as egregious as bangs, and b) long sidelocks, if kept, would easily become a replacement for the overwhelmingly common sight that is "sidelocks between the ear to chin" anyways.

I agree that people not properly tagging sidelocks - of any length - is indeed a problem, and it doesn't help that the wiki page didn't even mention sidelocks of other lengths until I edited it. Nuking short_sidelocks and very_long_sidelocks might not be a bad idea, given that there are only 15 and 48 posts with those tags respectively; this should also stop sidelocks and long sidelocks from (too) getting out-of-hand. Considering very long sidelocks doesn't even have a wiki page, what's the threshold? Should this tag be nuked? By contrast, long sidelocks need only be "shoulder length or longer."

Hair behind ear sounds awfully ubiquitous and people probably misuse it a lot, so is it really necessary? I didn't know about (or notice) that tag until you mentioned it, so I can't say much about it. I would like to hear more about the utility of that tag, and arguments against and in favour of it, but that seems a bit off-topic. That tag has 22k posts, so I think changes to it should maybe be discussed in another thread.

If this BUR is accepted, and short sidelocks and very long sidelocks are nuked (in a different BUR), I believed we can avoid another bangs-like problem. Though more feedback would be great before a BUR for those two tags is created.

DiscreteActor said:

Considering very long sidelocks doesn't even have a wiki page, what's the threshold? Should this tag be nuked? By contrast, long sidelocks need only be "shoulder length or longer."

I would consider the stomach/small of the back to be a reasonable starting point for very long bangs, e.g. post #7883535, or post #7677816 for an example closer to the minimum. At first I felt the limit of long sidelocks should be no further than the bottom of the chin, but after glancing at several pages of sidelocks 1girl solo and seeing the wide range of variability even in the chin-to-shoulder range, the wiki seems more appropriate. Hyper-specificity when it comes to "common sense" tags like hair lengths only ever hurt us, the gardeners, and I think beyond shoulder-length is a good enough place to beat the sidelocks bell curve.

Hair behind ear sounds awfully ubiquitous and people probably misuse it a lot, so is it really necessary? I didn't know about (or notice) that tag until you mentioned it, so I can't say much about it. I would like to hear more about the utility of that tag, and arguments against and in favour of it, but that seems a bit off-topic. That tag has 22k posts, so I think changes to it should maybe be discussed in another thread.

I mentioned hair behind ear only as one of two examples for why sidelocks isn't as bad as bangs was, not to invite further discussion about it. People certainly do misuse it, but that's more a fault of the horrible name and wiki than anything else. Worth some changes that I'll think about and propose another day.

John_Fantasy_XIV said:

I would consider the stomach/small of the back to be a reasonable starting point for very long bangs, e.g. post #7883535, or post #7677816 for an example closer to the minimum. At first I felt the limit of long sidelocks should be no further than the bottom of the chin, but after glancing at several pages of sidelocks 1girl solo and seeing the wide range of variability even in the chin-to-shoulder range, the wiki seems more appropriate. Hyper-specificity when it comes to "common sense" tags like hair lengths only ever hurt us, the gardeners, and I think beyond shoulder-length is a good enough place to beat the sidelocks bell curve.

That all sounds reasonable, and I don't think I have anything to add for now.

I mentioned hair behind ear only as one of two examples for why sidelocks isn't as bad as bangs was, not to invite further discussion about it. People certainly do misuse it, but that's more a fault of the horrible name and wiki than anything else. Worth some changes that I'll think about and propose another day.

My bad. I must have misinterpreted what you said in your previous post.

This bulk update request is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 45 days.

The bulk update request #30693 (forum #304410) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

The bulk update request #30693 (forum #304410) has been approved by @nonamethanks.