imply bike_shorts_under_skirt -> bike_shorts

BUR #10792 has been rejected.

create implication bike_shorts_under_skirt -> bike_shorts

Any image depicting bike shorts under a skirt must also be depicting bike shorts in general.

118 pages of images have both tags: https://danbooru.donmai.us/posts?tags=bike_shorts_under_skirt+bike_shorts+&z=5

6 pages of images violate this implication by not having the bike_shorts tag: https://danbooru.donmai.us/posts?tags=bike_shorts_under_skirt+-bike_shorts+&z=5. I looked at a sample of those images and all the ones I looked at did indeed deserve the bike_shorts tag.

I'd rather see this tag nuked, as it's identical to a bike_shorts skirt search. It's an unnecessary compound tag, as the posts it's for are easily searchable without it.

Bike_shorts + skirt can still return situations where two different characters are wearing the garments.

You can say that about most combinations of tags.

KagayakuShiningGate said:

Bike_shorts + skirt can still return situations where two different characters are wearing the garments.

As Talulah said, this issue is almost always present when searching more than one tag without adding solo to the search. It's a critique of the way we currently tag posts, not of any particular tag/combination of tags.

bike_shorts skirt -bike_shorts_under_skirt has 9.5k results, four times the amount of posts under the combo tag, and the vast majority of the posts are in fact bike shorts under skirts, due to the popularity of this concept, so I don't think we need this combo tag either.
It's one of those cases where having a combo tag is actually detrimental for us because it's a novice trap: people think it's the right way to see this kind of posts, but it actually only returns a percentage of them.

There's also shorts under skirt btw, which of course still only has half as many results as bike_shorts skirt -bike_shorts_under_skirt -shorts_under_skirt. It also implies shorts which goes against arguments raised in the past that bike shorts are not shorts because users are just adding shorts under skirt to pics of bike shorts under skirts.

There's also shorts under skirt, and from a quick glance, it seems like most of those are bike shorts-like. Personally I didn't even know about bike shorts under skirt until this thread.

To me it sounds like the obvious implications of these tags just lack some autist that arbitrarily tags all the new and old images with "tag" or "solo + tag" searches through tag script.

KagayakuShiningGate said:

There's also shorts under skirt, and from a quick glance, it seems like most of those are bike shorts-like. Personally I didn't even know about bike shorts under skirt until this thread.

Bike_shorts_under_skirt was aliased to shorts_under_skirt until about two years ago, so I would imagine that a lot of the bike_shorts shorts_under_skirt tagging is from users who are used to tagging it the old way.

I still think it's dumb that bike shorts doesn't imply shorts and all the things surrounding that, there has been several topics about this in the past.

Unbreakable said:

I still think it's dumb that bike shorts doesn't imply shorts and all the things surrounding that, there has been several topics about this in the past.

They frequently end up being tagged shorts anyway because there aren't any color tags for bike shorts. Bike_shorts black_shorts alone is over 6.5k posts.

That, and it's an artificial distinction. Saying bike shorts aren't shorts is like saying yoga_pants aren't pants.

More than an issue with colors, it's an issue with every other type of shorts tag that would have to be deimplicated from shorts because of this. shorts_pull bike_shorts, adjusting_shorts bike_shorts, torn_shorts bike_shorts etc. It's naturally a distinction most users are going to ignore.

This bulk update request is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 45 days.

The bulk update request #10792 (forum #214838) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.