Gonna make this brief. The short_hair_with_long_locks currently has several clauses that nobody reads and make it a useless tag. Look at the history and you'll see it's routinely gardened by a single user who removes dozens or hundreds of posts at times, while everyone else on the site uses it differently.
I vote to remove those clauses and make the tag for long stray locks with an otherwise short hair style, no matter if there's a hair bun in the picture (which is clearly how everyone is using it anyway).
I find it absurd post #4405945 cannot be tagged with this tag because of that small bunch of hair on the side, or post #4171316 can't either because you have to assume that she's got a hair bun behind. This definition doesn't help anyone.
The majority of the hair in the back must actually be short and unbound.
Hair length should be based on hair that is down and unbound. Hair that is bound up, such as in a hair bun, should not be counted.
If the only hair visible is either bound up in a bun or that which is in the long locks, then you should not use this tag.
You must be able to identify that long locks of hair in the back are not a tail hairstyle composed of all the hair in the back bunched up. This includes bunching all the hair into a side ponytail. If this can not be determined then do not use this tag.
I think that most of this is unnecessary. I always assumed that short hair with long locks is supposed to be used like most short hair cases, because it's in the name. The part about unbound is unnecessary IMO.
+1. short_hair_with_long_locks should be for hair that, if not for a couple of locks, wouldn't be long_hair. This is the most intuitive definition for the tag; nobody is going to assume there are any extra rules to it, and as such any extra rules that do exist are going to be ignored.
If the hair would be tagged with short hair, but has those very popular long sidelocks, like skyla_(pokemon), some art of saber and her various permutations, or even Ina'nis with her hair up (post #4189730), it should get the tag.
All those characters frequently have hair buns. hair_bun and similar tags do not automatically exclude short_hair. Thus, it should not exclude this tag.
Sidelocks usually end up being on the range of medium hair, so imo the requirement should be what Zapdos mentioned, that the locks need to be long enough to be considered long hair under the definition of that tag.
I think the bound up thing is basically there to exclude cases where it's visibly entirely long hair that is just worn partially in an updo. And I think it's right to have them. I also don't think that such posts should be under short hair. I actually think post #4189730 which was brough up earlier is a good example of what shouldn't get the tag.
It shouldn't be excluding posts that are actually short hair with long locks that happen to include an updo in the style.
I'll try and break down what the clauses are trying to do.
The majority of the hair in the back must actually be short and unbound.
This wording is specifically to differentiate images like post #3102796 from posts like post #3199800. The bounding of the hair into a ponytail can give the false perception that the hair is cut short outside of the ponytail. Edit: Another example: post #3573075 is short_hair_with_long locks, but post post #4387938 is not.
Hair length should be based on hair that is down and unbound. Hair that is bound up, such as in a hair bun, should not be counted.
This wording is to define that overall the character's hair should appear as short hair, so images like post #3996297. The wording down and unbound is more to define the overall length of a character's hair as identifiably "short" so as to avoid considering an image like post #2786554 as "short" because the majority of the hair appears short due to being bound. It was also to avoid characters like Shima Rin being classified as "short" hair because of a hairbun that locks up most of their hair when their hair is actually long (post #3009259) for the purposes of using this tag.
If the only hair visible is either bound up in a bun or that which is in the long locks, then you should not use this tag.
This clause is defining that images like post #4405168 or post #932 are not to be classified with this tag, because the majority of the hair is tied up into the "locks" (twintails) which gives the impression that the rest of the hair is short.
You must be able to identify that long locks of hair in the back are not a tail hairstyle composed of all the hair in the back bunched up. This includes bunching all the hair into a side ponytail. If this can not be determined then do not use this tag.
This is to discourage people from using this tag if they're only guessing if it qualifies for this tag.
I think the bound up thing is basically there to exclude cases where it's visibly entirely long hair that is just worn partially in an updo. And I think it's right to have them. I also don't think that such posts should be under short hair. I actually think post #4189730 which was brough up earlier is a good example of what shouldn't get the tag.
It shouldn't be excluding posts that are actually short hair with long locks that happen to include an updo in the style.
Those are medium-length sidelocks, I wouldn't tag it as short hair with long locks either, especially given the size of that hair bun.
