The wiki definition for outstretched_hand is so overlap with reaching, and apparently no one had separated it with outstretched_arm. I'm gonna clean these 3 tags up a bit later if there's no objection.
Updated by Cyberia-Mix
Posted under General
The wiki definition for outstretched_hand is so overlap with reaching, and apparently no one had separated it with outstretched_arm. I'm gonna clean these 3 tags up a bit later if there's no objection.
Updated by Cyberia-Mix
Depends what you're planning to do with them. I was thinking of taking care of them that way:
- reaching: not specific to hands, should only be used when the character is explicitely attempting to reach something/someone,
- outstretched_hand: when there's no apparent purpose.
Cyberia-Mix said:
- reaching: not specific to hands, should only be used when the character is explicitely attempting to reach something/someone,
Reaching should be quite clear like you said, and can be accompanied by outstretched_arm, outstretched_leg, or other objects that were used to reach something.
Outstretched_hand should depict open hand, no matter palm up, or palm down (post #653996) or being vertical (post #648921). Note that the upper arm can stay close to the body (post #684077).
Outstretched_arm when one arm are stretched straight out away from the body. Note that the hand can fist up, not necessarily open.
All of these 3 can go together or stand alone.
Updated
Finish going through these, and separating outstretched_arm from outstretched_arms in the process, if it's redundant please alias them (I don't think it is though).
Request alias outstretched_hands -> outstretched_hand. Not that it matters since nobody used the plural one.
Updated
rantuyetmai said: Finish going through these, and separating outstretched_arm from outstretched_arms in the process, if it's redundant please alias them (I don't think it is though).
Request alias outstretched_hands -> outstretched_hand.
I was going to say having two for arm/s and one for hand/s seemed weird but I guess two outstretched arms is a bigger difference from one outstretched arm than one or two hands are from each other. So alias done.
rantuyetmai said:
Outstretched_hand should depict open hand, no matter palm up, or palm down (post #653996) or being vertical (post #648921). Note that the upper arm can stay close to the body (post #684077).
So that's really a new concept from what we had before in the end.
I'd been wanting to tag hand palms at some point (since hands alone remains somewhat vague), but wasn't sure if that would really have been worth it.
Anyway I don't think post #684077 can qualify for the tag. First, the state of her hand is implied rather than shown, and second, you see her arm more than her hand, which makes things confusing since you'd rather expect the tag to say something about the more prominent part. So I would just tag such cases as hands and nothing more.
The outstretched_arm / outsretched_arms distinction is really nice, but since the latter can be redundant with spread_arms and some cases of arms_up, I'd rather exclude theses and keep the tag only for situations where the character is pointing his/her arms to the front (which seems to match most of the tag contents already).
Nice job. That's one less thing for me to do, thanks. :D
not sure, but i would like to request alias removal on the ff:
remove alias outstretched_hands -> outstretched_hand
remove alias hands_outstretched -> outstretched_hand
remove alias hand_outstretched -> outstretched_hand
in case singular/plural distinction matters:
create alias outstretched_hands -> open_hands
create alias hands_outstretched -> open_hands
create alias outstretched_hand -> open_hand
create alias hand_outstretched -> open_hand
Woah yes, don't do that.
Initially I started open_hands as a version of cupping_hands without the cum. Made no wiki because the name was only a placeholder (even though I haven't found a better name since). Then later on it seemed useful to have a separate singular version as well.
It's a pose aimed at carrying something in the palm(s).
post #608661
post #870239
post #958208
post #1139850
post #501157
post #838133
The fingers are also generally not stretched like with outstretched_hand.
ghostrigger said:
remove alias outstretched_hands -> outstretched_hand
remove alias hands_outstretched -> outstretched_hand
remove alias hand_outstretched -> outstretched_hand
I don't really mind the first 2 but I don't see the point of the 3rd one.
looking at the posts of open_hands, i would say that people soon started using it to refer when both hands are not closed into fists, hands_clasped, palms pressed together (palms_together), or holding anything.
the current application seems to have expanded than what was originally designed 'cupping_hands without cum'. however, the 'original' or what was initially intended definition of open_hands can still be covered by cupping_hands -cum.
the cupping_hands tag fits perfectly to a pose aimed at carrying something in the palm(s). it's a very specific and unambiguous position. but there's also no indication that it should be used exclusively for cum-related posts only.
meanwhile, open_hands is too ambiguous to indicate a hand pose only for carrying something. imho, outstretched_hands (plural) is the same as open_hands. their usage is exactly the same. one might argue that some fingers are not fully stretched, so outstretched_hands is not equal to open_hands. but we already have other tags when fingers are slightly curved (e.g. cupping).
the direction too of the alias outstretched_hands -> open_hands sounds more neutral, shorter to type, and less likely to be confused with other tags. imho, open_hands is broad enough to cover all instances of outstetched_hands. and i don't see the need to keep the two of them separate when one would do.
Updated
ghostrigger said:
the cupping_hands tag fits perfectly to a pose aimed at carrying something in the palm(s). it's a very specific and unambiguous position. but there's also no indication that it should be used exclusively for cum-related posts only.
I've been thinking that the day we gathered enough posts under open hand(s) we may start reconsidering the current use of cupping_hands.
But even then, to me they look better separated for practical uses.
I can't think of a precedent for this atm, but the concept is kind of two-faced. There's the porn context on one side (which is more of a sex act than a pose) and the non-porn one on the other. And it seems extremely unlikely to me that users want both in the same search results.
If merged I expect users will start using cupping_hands cum or cupping_hands -cum instead of using cupping_hands alone. It changes a former 1 tag search into a 2 tags search without benefit for anyone. Same logic as my post in forum #70424.
ghostrigger said:
imho, outstretched_hands (plural) is the same as open_hands. their usage is exactly the same. one might argue that some fingers are not fully stretched, so outstretched_hands is not equal to open_hands.
I'm all for changing open hands(s) to a more descriptive name if we can find one. Even cupping_hands isn't so good because of cases like post #1168545 where the hand isn't cupped at all.
If your point is that outstretched_hand is not broad enough and should expand to any situation where the palm is visible, I can see why you'd want to use the name open_hand.
That said I don't really know if it's worth tagging, and if this new concept starts being tagged, it shouldn't be merged with outstretched_hand which is more specific. Implication at most depending how the new tag is defined.
Updated