Fred1515 said:
You forgot that the [breasts flat_chest chartags:>1] search you linked also includes images where all of the girls depicted are flat-chested, with no well-endowed girls present.
...then fix them.
Posted under General
Fred1515 said:
You forgot that the [breasts flat_chest chartags:>1] search you linked also includes images where all of the girls depicted are flat-chested, with no well-endowed girls present.
...then fix them.
1. breasts and flat chest are two tags that cannot apply simultaneously to the same depiction of any character. We've debated over this issue far enough back when we codified the various breast size tags.
The only time there should be breasts and flat chest tagged in the same image is if there are two or more characters in the image, and they have varying bust sizes.
Recall that we aren't obligated to use dictionary-precise definitions for our tags. A flat chest may just be small breasts, but that does not matter; the tag refers to a size range (from absolutely flat to 1/3 of a head-size, specifically), not to the utter lack of mammaries.
2. trap + breasts = futanari without a vagina, unless it's obvious they're padded. If they're small enough that they would get the flat chest tag if the character were female, then just use the androgynous tag.
Additionally, if the character is so feminine in appearance that nothing masculine can be discerned about 'him', it should not be tagged as a trap unless the artist/pixiv tags/whatever specifically states otherwise.
S1eth said:
post #807562
I don't see either sideboob, flat_chest or face.
The curvy outline of her chest is visible, but "noticeable breasts"?
sideboob, flat chest, and breasts tags removed.
Fencedude said:
...then fix them.
This.
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
sgcdonmai said:
A flat chest may just be small breasts, but that does not matter; the tag refers to a size range (from absolutely flat to 1/3 of a head-size, specifically), not to the utter lack of mammaries.
huge_breasts and large_breasts are size ranges as well, so if I want boobs that are less that that, I would have to search breasts -large_breasts -huge_breasts (and less overlook for not gigantic_breasts), so I don't see your argument for their size excluding them from being umbrella'd just for "easy" [sic]. It would be a pain in the ass, but either allow breasts-flat_chest coincidence, de-alias small_breasts and implicate it with breasts, introduce a regular/medium/normal_breasts tag, or something, but if it's a boob, it's a damn boob, and I'm sure there are those searching from small breasts that don't necessarily want to sift through washboards.
Counterpoint:
large breasts up through gigantic breasts make it empirically obvious that there are, in fact, breasts present. On the other hand, flat chest covers every female chest size from 1/3 of a head-size on downward, including zero breast tissue at all.
Also, the only difficulty in finding medium-sized breasts is in simply searching with the string breasts -large_breasts -huge_breasts -gigantic_breasts. Not so much of a pain, unless you're only Member-level, in which case it is an impetus to upgrade your account; this is by albert's design.
sgcdonmai said:
Counterpoint:
large breasts up through gigantic breasts make it empirically obvious that there are, in fact, breasts present. On the other hand, flat chest covers every female chest size from 1/3 of a head-size on downward, including zero breast tissue at all.
That's a counterpoint to tagging all flat chests as breasts, but as you note, flat_chest can apply to fairly noticable breast sizes, so I don't see why one shouldn't tag a post flat_chest + breasts in the case where the breasts are small, but prominent.
Not saying it should go on all discernible breasts as the wiki edit proposed, but mutual exclusivity doesn't sound right either with the current definitions.
jxh2154 said:
[...] it may also be applied to loli characters. Not for use with child depictions.
post #760776 of child nude flat_chest, decided to be child in the loli/shota check thread for "lack a sexual elements" does not fit the definition anymore?
We've decided long ago that we were going to keep the breast tags distinct, and now we're just going to change it? What benefit is there to conflating flat_chest and breasts, aside from satisfying some people's hangups from a literal reading of "flat chest"?
Updated
jxh2154 said:
I deleted the part from the wiki where it says it may be applied to males. It may not be.
What about traps? We have way too many pictures where the "tag what you see" rule is blatantly ignored because the character is canonically trap. Same with androgynous characters, IMHO they _should_ be tagged with flat_chest, even if you can work out that they're male, if it's not immediately obvious.
Updated
I sorta feel like thats because too many people are insecure in their sexuality.
Anyway, yes, that is a problem. Namine Ritsu gets this a lot.
Traps are understood as males, so tagging trap with flat_chest doesn't convey any useful information.
I don't care what they're understood as. If they look like girls, they're girls for the purpose of tagging. Especially since a good deal of drawn traps are only traps because the artist says so, and are not in any visible way male.
Edit: but even for those for whom you can discern the underlying gender, the very idea of trap is that it's not obvious and they will pass as the other gender unless examined closely. Which means the visual tagging should still apply as it does to girls.
Updated
葉月 said: What about traps?
Trap is just a bad tag in general, but yes it should probably get an exemption clause in the wiki. As you note, most trap images look as female as any real female, so if you didn't know it was a trap you'd obviously tag flat_chest if visually appropriate. Same as we'd add breasts to a number of pics of, say, Tatsukichi from MM!. It's a gray area, but I'll edit the wiki to allow it.