@KalpacMuskoxen: > NWF_Renim said: > > One thing to point out...

KalpacMuskoxen
2020-12-26T19:18:55-05:00

NWF_Renim said:

One thing to point out is that this lumps bloomers together with underwear like panties, which is problematic given the fact that bloomers can be used both as an undergarment and as an overgarment to conceal undergarments (such as with post #2995110). It's dual nature would warrant disqualifying from trying to lump them with the others.

I'm opposed to this, as I do not agree with trying and getting rid of the color panties tags and lumping them together with male underwear.

I missed this reply earlier, sorry about that!

Oh dang, you do raise a perfectly valid point about bloomers. They definitely can be and are used as outerwear as well, so it's fair to omit them from a BUR like this. That being said, when worn as outerwear they are indifferentiable from pants (or shorts, depending on the length), and should be tagged as [color]_pants (or [color]_shorts), as that's what they functionally are.

One of the issues I omitted from the original post are the numbers invovled.

These are the largest color tags, per garment:
white_panties - 108,288 posts
white_briefs - 244 posts
white_male_underwear - 92 posts
black_boxer_briefs - 6 posts
grey_boxers - 9 posts

Even if you were to clump every single of those underpants color tags together, there would still only be 351 posts. If these numbers were more comparable with panties, keeping them separate would make sense. But when combined and they are still only 0.003% of that number, it's hard to justify these other garments even having their own color tags, especially considering how they're technically all just different forms of underpants.