Donmai

Tag implications: panties

Posted under General

Danielx21

List of implications to panties:

http://danbooru.donmai.us/tag_implication?query=panties&commit=Search+Implications

Other implications to be done:

Disclaimer:

I don't necessarily endorse the existence of all these tags, specifically. But, since we have them, these implications make sense.

Updated by Shinjidude

Reply
Shinjidude

BCI_Temp said:
I saw that tag yesterday and was wondering just how the hell you tell it apart from a maebari anyway.

They are usually slightly larger, and have more shape to them. If they are not being worn (which they always are), they are rigid rather than being adhesive strips.

Reply
Shinjidude

Yes, they have a metal frame, so provided the artist knows how they work, they should be mutually exclusive.

In general if it has a rounded tapered shape or flutes outward, it is not maebari which are usually rectangular

As for the tags being created, they have both been in use for a long time already.

Reply
BCI Temp

Out of curiosity, how do you tell the age and use of a tag anyway?

I've done some reading up and tried to update the Wiki for it to help better tell the two apart, but I ran into strapless bottom, which muddies the waters further, and it looks like images that belong better with that tag are going into c-string as well.

As for its relevance to panties, I would say it should not implicate them since it seems to be classified more as a thong bikini than as panties. You wear it to avoid tanlines. I doubt it's comfortable enough to use as underwear.

Reply
Danielx21

EB said:
If these are implicated to anything, it should be *_print tags instead (for instance, bear_print and strawberry_print which already exist).

True. Most certainly I'll even ask for implications of bear print -> bear, etc. in the future. Meanwhile...

Edited the intro to redo the system of "print" panties, this way:

The old replaced system was:

And I added:

Updated

Reply
Danielx21

BCI_Temp said:
That would then defeat the entire point of the *_print tags which was to avoid implicating everything the tags for the objects printed on an item implicates.

e.g. strawberry print does not implicate fruit and food. This is by design.

I know. But I'm not interested in contesting that practice now. "Most certainly I'll even ask for implications of bear print -> bear, etc. in the future." means that most certainly I'll contest it in the future.

Reply
Danielx21
Point A:

Shinjidude said:
A depiction of something is different than an instance of that thing.

That wording is somewhat confusing, but I disagree on principle. In drawings, all instances are depictions.

Both these hypothetical images would be drawings of bears:

1. A drawing of a bear chasing a girl.
2. A drawing of a girl wearing panties with a drawn bear.

Relatedly, Alignn said above when talking about strawberries: "The image [post #974144 or post #957006] contains a depiction of food (for danbooru's definition of food, which includes fruit and strawberries), so unless we specifically don't tag the contents of pictures in pictures, it's accurate."

If bear print specifically means "a bear drawn on some drawn object (e.g. a bear drawn on panties, on shirts, etc.)" then I'd expect all instances of it to hav the tag bear, too.

Point B:

I understand you have great knowledge of Danbooru's tags and practices, but your statement "it would screw up the way the tags work and unnecessarily dilute one to include things that don't quite apply to that tags' intended usage" is incorrect, because it implies we have a standard, popular, usage criterion and perhaps a huge number of separated "print" and "nonprint" images to be diluted somewhere. We don't.

Almost all instances of types of "print" ("strawberry print", etc.) have 152 posts or less, which is a small number. Most of these tags have 35 or less posts.

If you see fit introducing the new rule of absolutely distinguishing between bear print and bear, I'd like to know why, please. Especially, why anyone searching for the latter would not want to see the (currently few) instances of the former.

Point C:

The exceptions to that "152 posts or less" rule are:

These exceptions have 640 or more posts. They do not suggest that we should have a distinction between "depictions" and "instances". (or "print" and "nonprint") They have entirely different meanings.

  • paw print does not mean "a drawing of a drawing of a paw"; it means "the mark a paw makes when moist with ink and pressed on the ground"
  • floral print does not mean "a drawing of a drawing of a "flower"; it means "symbolic bidimensional patterns based on real-life flowers"
  • cow print does not mean "a drawing of a drawing of a cow"; it means "the black/white pattern of spots found in cow fur"
  • tiger print does not mean "a drawing of a drawing of a tiger"; it means "the black/orange pattern of stripes found in tiger fur"

The meanings were typed by me, for this thread, based on the contents of each tag.

Updated

Reply
NWF Renim

To be honest, such implications in the end result in a necessity to break or prevent higher level implications to be able to enable proper sorting of images. For example if you attempted something like strawberry_print implies strawberry, then somewhere along the line you're going to need to break an already existing implication, such as breaking the implication strawberry -> fruit or fruit -> food. At some point we need to draw the line of what is "real" in the image and what isn't. In the case of the bear tag, having something like bear_print imply bear means that we need to make sure then that we do not create an implication like bear -> animal. If such an implication is made, then the more general tag gets flooded with non-"real" animals and devalues the tag. It also forces unnecessary propagation of tags, because then someone will go "well we need a tag for real animals" which could have been accomplished simply by restricting the animal tag to real animals to begin with.

Danielx21 said:
That wording is somewhat confusing, but I disagree on principle. In drawings, all instances are depictions.

You choose to word this so it does not match up with what Shinjidude said. Yes, all instances are depictions, but not all depictions are instances. If you only want to tag instances that the item exists in an image, that is completely different from tagging all depictions of the item that exists in an image. If the bear tag is defined as all instances of a bear existing in the picture, than depictions of a bear (photo with in the image) would not be tagged, because they aren't an entity within the image. They're a depiction of the item, but they aren't an instance of the item.

Danielx21 said:
I understand you have great knowledge of Danbooru's tags and practices, but your statement "it would screw up the way the tags work and unnecessarily dilute one to include things that don't quite apply to that tags' intended usage" is incorrect, because it implies we have a standard, popular, usage criterion and perhaps a huge number of separated "print" and "nonprint" images to be diluted somewhere. We don't.

What a nice way to sugarcoat what is pretty much you saying "for all the experience you have, you're wrong, and I'm right."

Danielx21 said:
Almost all instances of types of "print" ("strawberry print", etc.) have 152 posts or less, which is a small number. Most of these tags have 35 or less posts.

Whoever said 152 posts is a small number? I don't consider it a small number. It's also interesting that you're bringing up post numbers here, when in another thread you bragged on about how tags were underpopulated until you started going through and populating them. If it's true that tags are underpopulated, then you using the current number values now is rather pointless as because that just means that there are plenty of images that aren't tagged. So which is it? Do we have an issue of underpopulated tags or not?

As for your point C, I'm not seeing the relevance. We've known for awhile that not all prints depict the actual item. Trying to compare things that have a similar name but a whole different patterning type is silly. Don't try and use that as an argument against what Shinjidude said, because you're trying to use something that is completely different. Stick to the pattern types that are actually relevant.

Reply
1 2