Posted under Tags
BUR #3984 has been rejected.
create implication swim_trunks -> shorts
It is a type of shorts that is used for swimming just like other types of shorts that have different uses.
The swim trunks wiki even mentions that they're shorts.
There's also bikini shorts that implies shorts, which is also a type of swimwear.
Updated
Kind of would prefer keeping them separated, but I guess as long as a note is made under no underwear tags that you shouldn't use them for posts with swim_trunks then I'm neutral on this.
As for why, it's because swim trunks are literally designed to not be worn with underwear, so tags that tag for a lack of underwear doesn't make sense to be used on clothing where wearing underwear isn't expected. In general though I consider shorts to be short pants, and pants to be clothing that is expected to be worn with underwear.
I'm not aware of any other swimwear tags that implicate ordinary non-swimwear garments. This implication would be like making rash_guard imply shirt or swim_briefs imply briefs.
Also note that swim_trunks solo -shorts has about 9 times as many posts as swim_trunks solo shorts. This is a much bigger discrepancy than could be explained by taggers simply "forgetting" to tag shorts; compare it with bike_shorts, which has far greater overlap with the shorts tag. There seems to be an unspoken agreement that swim trunks aren't shorts, in spite of what the wiki says.
One more issue with this implication is the way it would complicate searching for images where one person is wearing swim trunks and another person is wearing ordinary shorts. I have no idea how you would find things like post #2292214, post #2866414, and post #3909029 if this implication were approved. That's a very specific niche, though, so I guess it wouldn't be a terrible loss.
I'm not aware of any other swimwear tags that implicate ordinary non-swimwear garments.
There is a bikini_shorts tag that implies shorts. I guess swim_trunks -> shorts would follow the same logic. At least, it makes more sense to have post #4060015 under shorts than it does for post #4097953.
Rignak said:
There is a bikini_shorts tag that implies shorts. I guess swim_trunks -> shorts would follow the same logic.
Exactly. Aren't they both just swimwear shorts? I should have mentioned this but I did this BUR in a hurry. I'll add it.
Rignak said:
At least, it makes more sense to have post #4060015 under shorts than it does for post #4097953.
That example of bikini shorts is really pushing it. Are those really shorts?
As for why, it's because swim trunks are literally designed to not be worn with underwear, so tags that tag for a lack of underwear doesn't make sense to be used on clothing where wearing underwear isn't expected. In general though I consider shorts to be short pants, and pants to be clothing that is expected to be worn with underwear.
I don't know about others but I find it completely normal to wear underwear under the trunks. I used to do that all the time with my friends.
My argument is that they do look like shorts and that's the reason for the implication. We should tag what we see, no?
Don't think the idea that someone that wears trunks (or just regular shorts) in the city and then goes for a swim is that outlandish either.
Updated
There are two ways of tagging things.
One is by tagging visual similarities and the other is the purpose of the tagged item.
In the latter, shorts are not the same as swimming trunks. One is used for swimming and similar, the other for everyday stuff. That's why bikini isn't tagged underwear
That being said, it isn't too uncommon to walk around in just swimwear (both bikini/swimsuits and swim trunks) in vacation towns, so they serve the same purpose there.
But even then, a bikini can be used as underwear as well
As for the other point, I don't know of any example that would counter this implication but swim trunks look like shorts as both are made of "heavier" material.
This can't be said for bikini and bras/panties as the former is usually "heavier" than the "light" material used for regular underwear.
To put it simply, swim trunks can serve the same purpose as regular shorts (same with bikini and bra/panties) and aren't made out of a completely different material (unlike bikinis and bra/panties).
So, I wouldn't be opposed to an implication.
Admiral_Pectoral said:
I don't know about others but I find it completely normal to wear underwear under the trunks. I used to do that all the time with my friends.
My argument is that they do look like shorts and that's the reason for the implication. We should tag what we see, no?
You're perhaps thinking of boardshorts, which look similar to swim trunks (although supposedly generally looser and longer than swim trunks) but normally do not have the liner that is the norm for swim trunks.
To square the logic, I'd actually be up for an unimply of the bikini shorts implication since I don't really agree with it. Looking back, it was set in a mass shorts BUR (topic #12871) with relatively little feedback from the community, though admittedly there was a lot less back then due to the lack of a voting system and lower forum participation.
I would say that swimwear and regular clothing should normally be kept separate because they serve different functions. Compare this with bike shorts, which we decided don't count as shorts because they serve a different purpose than regular shorts, even though they're called shorts and they look like shorts. Or look at boxers, which can look like shorts the same way that swim trunks do, but they're still underwear, not street clothes.
The fact that most people don't tag swim trunks as shorts already also suggests that people think of them as different things.
The bulk update request #3984 (forum #176253) has been rejected by @evazion.
