Tag implication: tank_top -> sleeveless_shirt

create implication tank_top -> sleeveless_shirt

Link to implication

Just want to hear some opinions.
Because in my imagination a tanktop is always a sleeveless_shirt.

Would they qualify for the shirt tag is the important question. If they wouldn't, then this implication shouldn't be made, as sleeveless_shirt implicates shirt.

Also would people really want these under the shirt tag is another question that has to be answered.

Tank tops are one of those odd ducks where it's not really substantial enough to be worn alone as a shirt, but substantial enough to not be underwear. Posts under sleeveless_shirt look more stylish and purposely-designed than tank tops, in any case.

I favor keeping the status quo.

The tag implication tank_top -> sleeveless_shirt has been rejected.

Want to bring this up again.
Since a tanktop is defined by being sleeveless, shouldn't it implicate sleeveless (without the shirt part)?

And if an image shows a tank top worn underneath a sleeved shirt? Hypothetical example perhaps, but if the focus of sleeveless is the lack of sleeves on a person, then it wouldn't work.

Hillside_Moose said:

And if an image shows a tank top worn underneath a sleeved shirt? Hypothetical example perhaps, but if the focus of sleeveless is the lack of sleeves on a person, then it wouldn't work.

We already have stuff tagged with sleeveless where the person in question has sleeves on a different garment, in part thanks to the implications from sleeveless dress and sleeveless shirt to sleeveless, though. Like post #2407983.

kuuderes_shadow said:

We already have stuff tagged with sleeveless where the person in question has sleeves on a different garment, in part thanks to the implications from sleeveless dress and sleeveless shirt to sleeveless, though. Like post #2407983.

That's a good question...this is more like a vest though: Black vest + black skirt.
And vest while being definitely sleeveless doesn't imply this tag.

Provence said:

That's a good question...this is more like a vest though: Black vest + black skirt.
And vest while being definitely sleeveless doesn't imply this tag.

It's a dress, though. Not a vest and a skirt.

kuuderes_shadow said:

It's a dress, though. Not a vest and a skirt.

Did that say the artist? Because if so, then ok. Otherwise, this wouldn't make much sense because of the belt.
But this isn't much of a topic here, that's more for how to tag this and was meant to also drag "vest" into this discussion. Wasn't well done, but ok.

So.... if sleeveless dress implies "sleeveless", then why shouldn't tanktop and vest do the same which are by their definition sleeveless garments.

Sleeveless is defined like this here:
The lack of sleeves on a garment worn the upper body, often revealing bare shoulders and arms.

->
1. A garment -> If there are multiple garments, then it shouldn't matter. Every single garment need to be looked at seperately
2. Often revealing =/= Everytime
So if there is a vest and a long-sleeved shirt, then by this definition, we have to see that there are two garments and the vest has no sleeves (no sleeves is aliased to sleeveless). Bare shoulders aren't necessary.
So either we have to adjust the definition or the implication should be done.