Posted under Tags
remove implication panties_under_buruma -> panties
a lot of times the images with panties_under_buruma show pantylines, with no panties actually visible.
Ex: post #3364505, post #3334062, post #3146739, etc.
The definition also hints to the tag being used for pantylines more than visible panties but, in some cases panties are also visible, so, we shouldn't imply pantylines instead.
EDIT: The bulk update request #1913 (forum #153539) has been approved by @Hillside_Moose.
Updated by DanbooruBot
Wait, why the heck do we even have a panties under buruma tag? Just use buruma + pantylines. If panties are partially visible, also add panty peek.
For that matter, I can't really see that and of the other panties_under_* tags need to exist except for panties under pantyhose, and the only reason to need that one is because pantyhose don't normally have pantylines.
Not necessarily, legwear_under_shorts (should be just pantyhose) for instance was created since it was a pretty unusual combination before makise kurisu came along.
Other pantyhose under/over tags exist because there are several ways to wear that combination from what i've seen.
Though some others can definitely just be replaced by 2-3 tags already on the image, as is here.
Well there is also the "shorts_under_*" bunch of tags but as you said they are mostly for stuff whose combination is unusual (not the panties visible through/under buruma isn't), I mostly wanted to bring them up for consideration.
I would say that it's not because their combination is unusual, but that there's no other way to represent that information. There is no legwearlines or shortslines tags, nor would there be, since those usually don't make lines. Therefore, they need the **_under_** tags.
With the tag pantylines though, that already implicitly says that there are panties under something. Perhaps if we want a way to disambiguate them, we could create *_pantylines tags.
BrokenEagle98 said:
With the tag pantylines though, that already implicitly says that there are panties under something. Perhaps if we want a way to disambiguate them, we could create *_pantylines tags.
Example:
- skirt_pantylines
- buruma_pantylines
- pants_pantylines
- shorts_pantylines
- etc. etc.
Nooooooo waaaay
The last thing we want is to split up and complicate an already unpopular tag.
For panties_under_buruma, i'm with nuking the tag, however that is done and i'll clean up tags where needed.
The other tags mentioned, should be split into a separate thread, if it is that much of a concern.
The bulk update request #1913 (forum #153539) has been approved by @Hillside_Moose.
