Nuke dress_pants. They look like regular pants!

BUR #26933 has been rejected.

mass update dress_pants -> pants -dress_pants

I don't understand the utilitarian point of this tag (redundancy). In context of 2D illustrations, they are basically plain-coloured, regular-looking trousers (not denim), with a colour that usually matches the suit jacket. On many occasions such as post #7591699 or post #7437592, they are not even paired with the matching top. *_pants colour tags are already enough.

Once again, it serves zero purpose but tag count inflation.

I'm not really understanding the argument here? We shouldn't have a tag for dress pants because they're a relatively normal, commonly worn type of pants?

Why would them being paired with a matching top or not be relevant to the tag's utility? It's not like dress pants are the "default pants" or is that what you're saying?

Full disclosure though, I seem to be biased in this situation - the two posts used as examples above are both uploaded by me, as are several of the most recent posts in dress pants.

Why does this topic keep showing up under "New" without any new replies? Are there replies being added that I can't see for some reason, or is World Funeral making insubstantial edits to bump the thread?

gfz said:

or is World Funeral making insubstantial edits to bump the thread?

Yes. OP has been edited 3.7 hours ago as I’m writing this.

kittey said:
Yes. OP has been edited 3.7 hours ago as I’m writing this.

Sorry for reluctantly bumping threads, since there is no way to "appeal" unapproved or autorejected BURs. Even those without downvotes.

A BUR that was posted 9 days ago has not been unapproved or autorejected.

I have to say it feels inconsiderate to keep bumping the thread and leaving my questions unanswered. When I see the thread up under "New" I keep clicking it expecting a reply that isn't there. You could have bumped the thread by responding to me, but instead you're ignoring what I wrote to make insubstantial edits, repeatedly.

On top of that, I think this is the second or third time you've bumped the thread, and it's only been a week.

I honestly don't see how a colour tag in any situation is an acceptable alternative for a specific type of clothing. You might as well just tell people to use pants at that point, it's about as useful (that is, not at all). Maybe we should nuke pleated skirt too because it's the most common type of skirt. Just use *_skirt.

If any tag is actually useful for finding dress pants, it's suit, but then you're using a complete outfit tag for a single article of clothing. The fact dress pants can be worn without a matching suit jacket also supports the existence of dress pants, if anything, because then suit stops being a reliable method of finding the pants because it's not a suit anymore. That would be like telling people to use serafuku to find pleated skirts because pleated skirts are the most common type of skirt and serafukus include them.

To address the topic at hand, there may be situations where people want to find a combination of different styles of pants in the same image. Say you're an artist and you want to learn how other artists make dress pants visually distinct from jeans. You could, in theory, search dress_pants jeans and pull up something like post #3862250 (you can't currently find that post with that search actually, but that's because dress pants is extremely undertagged and should probably apply to many more of the posts currently only tagged with suit.)

Sure, you can also track down some artist who's drawn various styles of pants in different pieces of artwork, but doing it in a single search is easier.

And if to find dress pants you have to search suit and click past upper-body shots and shit like post #7698251, or search pants -jeans and ignore all sorts of other "regular-looking trousers" like post #7698484, that's another hoop to jump through.

BUR #27306 has been rejected.

create implication dress_pants -> pants

If you downvoted the first option, here's the "better" alternative for those who want it to stay.

World_Funeral said:

Sorry for reluctantly bumping threads, since there is no way to "appeal" unapproved or autorejected BURs. Even those without downvotes.

No reason to do this, its annoying especially if there isn't a substantial change. The thread is nowhere near expiring wait like everyone else, when I see a bump I want new information or a new reply.

gfz said:

I'm not really understanding the argument here? We shouldn't have a tag for dress pants because they're a relatively normal, commonly worn type of pants?

Can you list some of the defining features of dress pants? Even removing -suit from the tag I just see formal necktie and button down pictures. I'm not opposed to keeping it, but the wiki isn't helping me visualize it. A lot of them looks like what I would call khakis or slacks which is aliased to pants.

The defining characteristics of dress pants that I think of would be

• A straight cut down the leg
• Belt loops around the waist
• Two front and two back pockets only
• One or two pleats down the leg
• A fly with a zipper and button or clasp at the top.

Just off the top of the pile post #7697794 is a good side-by-side example of dress pants vs just pants. You can see the distinctive straight fit which is not baggy or tight, the belt loops, pleats on the side, pockets on the hips, and the fly. The character on the right is wearing what we might call generic pants (maybe tight pants or yoga pants), which lacks all of the points above. Another comparison would be post #7697670 vs post #7697511. There are a lot of posts that just feature a kind of generic pants - I think dress pants are pretty visually distinct in most of the posts I see the tag on.
Some more non-examples I from quickly browsing black pants:
post #7698841 - extra pockets and side pouch
post #7697784 - extra seams
post #7694826 - generic black bants
post #7698866 - fit too tight, no belt loops

zetsubousensei said:

(...)
A lot of them looks like what I would call khakis or slacks which is aliased to pants.

If I may offer my opinion, I'm leaning towards the argument zetsubousensei touches upon.
I'm not sayig dresspants and pants have a 100% overlap (although of course, in a drawn, simplified medium the overlap is larger than IRL). But there are lots and lots of IRL clothing types which get their tags aliased, and I think consistency matters here, unless there is a very good reason to make an exception (like popularity, cultural significance, etc.).

gfz said:

The defining characteristics of dress pants that I think of would be

• A straight cut down the leg
• Belt loops around the waist
• Two front and two back pockets only
• One or two pleats down the leg
• A fly with a zipper and button or clasp at the top.

I suppose in this case these pants are severely undertagged. I see some posts that that don't fit that description in dress pants mainly in not having belt loops or having extraneous elements like post #6558716, post #5227275, and whatever post #5798263 is. But if it's something that specific that can be tagged and someone feels like cleaning it I see no reason to alias it. Have a downvote.

I'd also consider modifying the wiki to include these details since right now it feels like a lot of formal or suit posts are being added regardless of fitting.

FWIW, I don't think something should have to tick all of these boxes to be considered dress pants - of the three examples you gave, I would probably still tag post #6558716 as dress pants because it has the pleats, a waistband (which I forgot to mention in my earlier post but is another good criteria to help distinguish these from something like yoga pants), and it seems like the missing pockets and belt loops are an artistic error. I would also consider something like post #7280898 girl on the right, which breaks the "straight cut" rule, to be acceptable deviation from the standard.

Anyway, I brushed up the wiki a bit according to the definition I gave here - feel free to edit it however.

I will concede that pants has so much variance that a tag for "formal" pants makes sense: there's baggy pants, track pants, hakama pants, and a million other types that make it so that searching for pants does not guarantee you'll actually find formal pants. In fact, you can open pants right now and you'll notice that most results are of actually pretty casual styles of pants.

This tag is however extremely underpopulated, even by just looking at suit which is several orders of magnitude bigger, or pants dress_shirt or pants formal. It needs to be filled up if we want the argument that it's needed to search for formal pants to actually hold up.

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 #26933 (forum #283431) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

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