Danbooru

Tag implication: breasts_outside -> breasts

Posted under Tags

Toks said:
Then why is 50% of small breasts tagged with breasts?

Because small breasts is not well established yet for non-forum visitors, those how tag breasts breasts no matter the size. Mistagging, multiple different breast tags added by different users to the same image. Combine that with borderline cases and *girls images, which will naturally get both tags.

What is "sufficiently emphasized"?

i.e. they are noticeable or the focus of the image: e.g. partially or fully exposed breasts, breast comparison, breast measuring, breast envy, etc.

Here's the problem:
if the small breasts are not partially or fully exposed, one shouldn't use small breasts, or any breast tag, at all. Small breasts defines a size range between flat chest and breasts, not a subset of the breasts tag.

S1eth said:

Here's the problem:
if the small breasts are not partially or fully exposed, one shouldn't use small breasts, or any breast tag, at all. Small breasts defines a size range between flat chest and breasts, not a subset of the breasts tag.

I agree that "partially or fully exposed" is a bad example and should probably be removed from that wiki.

But I think being a "focus of the image" makes sense. Small_breasts that are a focus could be tagged as breasts without issue, because that's part of the definition of the breasts tag. And the breasts_outside wiki says breasts must be "somewhat conspicuous" to qualify for it.

So any small_breasts that qualify for breasts_outside should also qualify for breasts.

S1eth said:

Combine that with [...] *girls images, which will naturally get both tags.

Still, 42% of small_breasts solo is tagged with breasts.

S1eth said:

Because small breasts is not well established yet for non-forum visitors, those how tag breasts breasts no matter the size. Mistagging, multiple different breast tags added by different users to the same image.

Maybe some of that 42% shouldn't be tagged breasts, but that doesn't mean none of it should. The ones under breasts outside should be tagged as breasts, IMO.

S1eth said:

That's terrible!

I'm not seeing the issue. When was it decided that small_breasts can never be tagged as breasts?

I haven't been able to find any small_breasts posts that would qualify for breasts_outside but not breasts.

The old flat chest was mutually exclusive with breasts (unless the case is so borderline that you can't tell which)
flat chest was split up in two tags, but the size range of flat chest + small breasts is not larger than before, and the lower limit of breasts wasn't changed either.

Toks said:
I haven't been able to find any small_breasts posts that would qualify for breasts_outside but not breasts.

post #1436393
If that counts as breasts, then small breasts should just implicate breasts.

@S1eth
You are completely missing that breasts tag is different from other breast size tags. Unlike them, it is not only covering the specific size range (from X to Y), it is also used for images "where the breasts are noticeable". That's why large_breasts and huge_breasts implicate it.

S1eth said:
post #1436393
If that counts as breasts, then small breasts should just implicate breasts.

Yes, that probably can be tagged with breasts.
But I'm not sure if it's a good idea to make such implication. Unlike large_breasts/huge_breasts, small_breasts are usually less noticeable because they are simply not as large.

MyrMindservant said:
@S1eth
You are completely missing that breasts tag is different from other breast size tags. Unlike them, it is not only covering the specific size range (from X to Y), it is also used for images "where the breasts are noticeable". That's why large_breasts and huge_breasts implicate it.

You could read up on the older threads about the same topic.
topic #7186 asks if an image should be able to have both the flat chest and the breasts tag.
It was also mentioned that (at that time) "The search breasts flatchest solo returns 53 pages" and that it should be cleaned up, as in:
< 1/3 head size = flat chest; > 1/3 head size = breasts
(Note that I've actually been very pro-breasts there with even the same argument.
Not that this cleanup ever happened, because as Toks said, now " 42% of small_breasts solo is tagged with breasts" instead. (because they were all moved from flat_chest to small_breasts)

small_breasts can qualify for use of the breasts tag. The point of splitting small_breasts from flat_chest is that they're visually distinct, and we lacked a breasts tag that covered something larger than flat chests. In other words, small_breasts fills a previous gap in tagging.

So yes if a post qualifies for breasts_outside, presumably it should also get breasts. I assume the definition of breasts_outside is mutually exclusive with flat_chest, no?

jxh2154 said:

I assume the definition of breasts_outside is mutually exclusive with flat_chest, no?

That's how I understand the definition, at least. It says "Tag refers to breasts showing somewhat conspicuously outside of clothing."

It mentions breasts (which is mutually exclusive with flat_chest), and also says "outside of clothing", which would require the chest have some volume (which flat_chests don't).

1