colored male underwear and underwear_* implications

BUR #6698 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

Long overdue BUR.
Back when I first joined Danbooru, the male underwear tags were an outdated and confusing mess, I made the color underwear tags 10 months ago in hope of finding a more proper way of tagging them.

I'm still a little iffy on the naming of these color tags as discussed back in forum #175473 and topic #17831.
We couldn't get much of a productive discussion going on unfortunately and I couldn't think of a better name for them, so this will have to do right now.

Some points regarding this BUR:

• Both loincloth and fundoshi didn't get the male underwear implication as discussed in topic #172490 but we forgot to imply it to the general underwear so I'm doing that now.

• I made new wikis for almost all of these underwear tags. I would appreciate it if others can check them and discuss whether they're good enough or not.

• There are still older tags like black briefs and such that probably need to be aliased to the newer tags, but I'd like to discuss that first before making this BUR even bigger.

fundoshi and loincloth are not worn under other clothes usually, are they? So I'm not sure they count as underwear.

Fundoshi (ふんどし/褌) is the traditional Japanese undergarment for adult males, made from a length of cotton. ... Nowadays, the fundoshi is mainly used not as underwear but as festival (matsuri) clothing at Hadaka Matsuri or, sometimes, as swimwear.

Not these days, it seems.
I saw that loincloth was listed on the underwear wiki and just assumed it was tagged like that, since I've seen it worn as underwear sometimes.

I guess that leaves the only appropriate implication to loincloth being Japanese clothes like fundoshi then? Unless I'm missing something.

Will remove the implications and edit the appropriate wikis that mention these two tags.

nonamethanks said:

fundoshi and loincloth are not worn under other clothes usually, are they? So I'm not sure they count as underwear.

They aren't common underwear anymore so you'd assume they aren't worn under anything you see today, and therefore see them almost exclusively as outerwear, but they were historically undergarments. You can see that in quite a few posts with fundoshi *_pull -fundoshi_pull. You typically see them as underwear with characters that traditionally always dress as samurai or ninja, or otherwise wear old-fashioned clothing (e.g. a lot of Kantai Collection and Touhou characters).

As for the aliases, it might be fair to leave them out due to modern usage? Seeing a Sumo with fundoshi exposed though would still historically have been analogous to seeing Walter White in his tighty whities on Breaking Bad today though.

Admiral_Pectoral said:

Not these days, it seems.
I saw that loincloth was listed on the underwear wiki and just assumed it was tagged like that, since I've seen it worn as underwear sometimes.

I guess that leaves the only appropriate implication to loincloth being Japanese clothes like fundoshi then? Unless I'm missing something.

Will remove the implications and edit the appropriate wikis that mention these two tags.

Not all loincloths are japanese clothes. For example post #4721928 or post #4193269.

nonamethanks said:

Not all loincloths are japanese clothes. For example post #4721928 or post #4193269.

Right, I was missing something after all.
Removed.

As for underwear pull and underwear peek, shouldn't they be called male_underwear_pull/peek? Because we have panty peek/bra peek etc which are technically underwear peek, and same for pull, but they have many many more posts.

That way they can imply male underwear instead of underwear.

nonamethanks said:

As for underwear pull and underwear peek, shouldn't they be called male_underwear_pull/peek? Because we have panty peek/bra peek etc which are technically underwear peek, and same for pull, but they have many many more posts.

That way they can imply male underwear instead of underwear.

I thought of that but what stopped me was that the underwear tag is implied to lingerie and bloomers.
I now see that we already have bloomers pull though, without a wiki.
The options are either to create more tags for them or have a general one for all underwear.

What should be done about this?

I don't understand what you mean. male underwear implies underwear, we can just rename underwear pull to male underwear pull and underwear peek to male underwear peek, and imply both to male underwear.

Female underwear already has the various specialized _pull/_peek tags, we don't need a generic "underwear pull"/"underwear peek" tag because bras are underwear too.

I don't mind doing that.
I just wanted to confirm if it was okay as I saw quite a few uploads under underwear pull that were using it for female underwear (which I'm not familiar with, I thought we had to make 4 new tags for this to work), but it seems like you took care of most that already.

I will edit the BUR accordingly.

Edit: How does pulling male underwear sound compared to male underwear pull? I think I like the former a bit more, and it would probably be easier to find in the autocomplete.

Admiral_Pectoral said:

Edit: How does pulling male underwear sound compared to male underwear pull? I think I like the former a bit more, and it would probably be easier to find in the autocomplete.

It would go against all the other pull tags.

Edits to the BUR

Create alias underwear_pull -> male_underwear_pull
Create alias underwear_peek -> male_underwear_peek
Create alias underwear_pull_(male) -> male_underwear_pull
Create alias underwear_peek_(male) -> male_underwear_peek
create implication male_underwear_pull -> male_underwear
create implication male_underwear_peek -> male_underwear

Added the usual aliases for tags that start with "male" as there are too many by now.

Looking at the tag list, we have colored tags for some of these specific underwear types. Like white_briefs, white boxers, etc. What do we need the *_male_underwear colors for then? The male underwear tag also lists undershirts, but we don't have a white_underwear or similar tags for female underwears. We just distinguish between colored panties, bloomers, bras etc. I don't understand why we're trying to do the opposite with male underwear.

Isn't it a bit late to be asking something like that? I mean no offense but come on.
I asked for other's opinions about this back in forum #175473 and forum #177968 and mentioned I have started creating, populating, and making wikis for these tags multiple times. I waited almost a year to make this BUR so that they would all be decently populated.
This is not the first time male focus tagging differs from the female one. Usually, it's a good idea to replicate the same concepts to both sides, but it isn't always suitable.

Simply put, I don't think creating 12 tags for each underwear type is smart (there are 5-7 types, so that's around 60-84 tags).

• Firstly, it would be super messy (imagine listing ~80 tags in the male underwear wiki) and will end up with almost a hundred tags that are barely populated that all will require BURs of their own after they get populated, if they get populated at all. That's just more trouble than it's worth, IMHO.

• I don't believe male underwear has the same cult following as panties in that people actually really care about color that much. I've never heard of anyone going off to orange boxers or black jockstrap, for example. These tags barely existing show how little we actually care about this, no?

• Users tend to not create new tags often, and a lot of others (myself included) will be hesitant to use a tag that has less than ~50 entries, because we guess that there's probably a smarter way of tagging this thing, otherwise the tag wouldn't be this small.

Not to mention it's almost useless to search for a tag with such few numbers

• I think the more probable things to search for might be amusing stuff like pink male underwear or print male underwear. Personally, I would be interested to see how artists make those work, but I wouldn't care about the underwear type at all.

If you consider that, making multiple tags would just make things harder to find because you'd have to remember all underwear types and hope that a tag like that exists in the first place, and the autocomplete ...I would give up before even trying tbh.

• Having 12 general tags for all types means you can even tag the color of underwear in underwear peek pics in which you usually can't confirm what type it is anyway.

• I did not create these tags because I think underwear colors matter. I made them to make something previously untaggable, taggable. That's it.

I don't think colors of underwear warrant much complexity when you can easily use two tags to get the same limited results one tag would give, without the downside of having a mess of barely populated tags that are not worth searching for or gardening and without the ability to search all underwear colors at the same time.

I would be okay with a compromise of leaving the old *underwear_color tags alone to see how they fare or wait for someone that actually cares about looking for a specific type of male underwear with a specific color to join the discussion.

Sorry for the wall of text, but it's frustrating how I have to explain myself multiple times when it comes to these things and still end up being asked about the same thing later.

Sorry for making you retype things that were typed before, but there's a lot of forum threads out there and we have to keep track of hundreds of them a month. When the arguments start getting divided across multiple different threads then it becomes impossible to remember everything.

That said, I tend to agree on your proposal for topic #17610. The tags here and here will need to be mass updated, so something like update white_briefs -> white_male_underwear briefs, and then probably each color tag should be aliased to the equivalent color_male_underwear tag, so alias white_briefs -> white_male_underwear. The mass update must be done first so we don't lose information.

The bulk update request #6698 (forum #194067) has been approved by @nonamethanks.

Looking at the actual tags they were all pretty small save for white briefs and black briefs, so probably an alias is not necessary. It also allows us to easily create the individual tags in the future if we ever decide they're needed.

They'll still need to be moved manually.

nonamethanks said:

Looking at the actual tags they were all pretty small save for white briefs and black briefs, so probably an alias is not necessary. It also allows us to easily create the individual tags in the future if we ever decide they're needed.

They'll still need to be moved manually.

I moved what I found manually. There's still a lot of small tags under *_underwear but I figured I should leave these since they not specific to one underwear type.

What do you think about edging underwear? It seems to be underwear that has a different colored edge, is it worth keeping?

Next is male swimwear...

Admiral_Pectoral said:

What do you think about edging underwear? It seems to be underwear that has a different colored edge, is it worth keeping?

It seems to be used for underwear with distinct (and usually differently colored) seams along the waistband, leg openings and/or crotch region. Checking online with "edging underwear" also gets some similar-looking hits, though those are usually prepended with a color (e.g. "white edging underwear").

Currently tagged examples appear to be consistent. I'd say the tag can stay unless there's a better existing one that it can be aliased to. Though the current tag needs a wiki def and some kind of utility alias or rename. IMHO never heard of "edging underwear" before this.

BUR #6979 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

create alias boxers_pull -> male_underwear_pull
create alias briefs_pull -> male_underwear_pull

These were moved manually.