Danbooru

Wiki suggestions: frills,ruffles

Posted under General

I've noticed the tags frills and ruffles don't have any Wikis attached to them. And given their similarities, it can be easy to mistake the two (I've seen a lot of posts tagged with frills, when ruffles should have been used instead) -- and some people, I'm sure, might not even know the difference between the two at all. The only mention of frills or ruffles is in the lace Wiki.

So, my suggestion would be to add Wiki entries for frills and ruffles (that also specifically highlight the differences between the two), and cross-link the Wikis as well.

eg:

<description for frills>

See also

... or something like that. I just think those tags--and their related tags--could be more aptly described.

Thoughts?

Updated by ghostrigger

Well, I think we at least need to agree on *some* kind of basic definition, here.

Though, for the record (and somewhat continuing from what was discussed in said thread), I consider frills and ruffles visually distinct. But it might just be a lot simpler to only use one, given the confusion people seem to have between the two (as well as how a lot of people consider them the same thing), and how similar they can appear.

I'd honestly, maybe, consider aliasing ruffles to frills, just for simplicity, and tagging's sake. As a lover of frilly clothing, I use that tag a lot, and it honestly just gets tiring always having to consciously gauge which tag I should use, and then wonder if I tagged it correctly; I just want to look, tag what I see, and move-on.

But meh, like I said, I really think we need to agree on something, since it looks like this has been in limbo for a good while.

(and on a side-note, I notice that in the thread you linked, there was some mention of Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't always right, and I think doing what's better for Danbooru's tagging purposes supersedes what Wikipedia says.)

i happened to encounter this problem as well. the current wiki definition mentioned above is inconclusive and not very helpful at all. i'm using the frills definition in a dictionary and it's safe to say that frills and ruffles are pretty much synonymous.

if we are going to separate the terms, for tagging purposes, i think it's impractical and too late since the posts have grown very large already. it will be very time-consuming to just check 10,000+ posts just to verify if it's made of lace or any other material.

i propose we alias ruffles -> frills for good to ease tagging and to avoid confusion finally. i volunteer to update the wiki pages when this pending issue is resolved.

and corollary to this, is another alias:
ruffled_skirt -> frilled_skirt

Updated

ok, thanks. is this the official definition we are holding all this time? if yes, then i'll place this to the wiki where it should belong and be more visible to other taggers.

the danbooru wiki definition for frills even has ruffles next to it after the semi-colon, similar in stating synonyms in a dictionary hence my confusion.

however, if there are opposition still, then i'm willing to observe some grace period.

edit: i've read the post mentioned. it's quite informative but i'm doubtful if this is the official at all.

Bapabooiee said:
And for the record, these are my own definitions.

i did follow the thread, and the issue is still unresolved after more than a year. neither everybody confirms nor opposes to it. i agree to the previous posters that this issue be solved anytime soon. back then it was only about 200+, if i read it correctly, but now it's more than 10000+.

i'm not speaking for everybody, but as a common tagger myself, the terms are basically the same. even the dictionary agrees.

it really matters not which one of the terms is made to be the alias. i think that is the issue in the previous discussion. when we alias something, it's only a matter of preference which to use. but for matters of organizing, if one term will do then the better.

my only point is that as time goes and drags on, the posts continue to grow and even if we originally intended to maintain it separately, it is now pointless because the posts are diluted already since 1 year passed without a conclusive definition.

Updated

ghostrigger said:
i've read the post mentioned. it's quite informative but i'm doubtful if this is the official at all.

Official definitions are mostly guidelines. In the present case if we see a visual distinction between ruffles and frills, even if the names are made up the disctinction still exists.
We try to follow official definitions to keep the tag names intuitive but at times it's just not possible. That's why we sometimes resort to oddities like crossed_legs_(standing).
We might settle for better names than ruffles and frills if they contradict established definitions, but then we still need something.

And I don't really mind the tags being largely misused. A lot of popular tags are the same.

Cyberia-Mix said:
... even if the names are made up the disctinction still exists.

it's all right if we make our own terms. however, the definition in the forum post is entirely different than in the wiki. the wiki almost, nearly, offers no distinction at all. and the gap between them exists for such a long time already.

and i fear many taggers tag based mainly on their intuition i.e. "hit and run" or "fire and forget". and those fewer who care enough check the wiki definition for guidance. and to the much fewer still even bothers counter-checking the forums if they don't find anything useful in the wiki. hence the distinction seems to disappear already. that leaves only very few who knows the difference. and with 10000+ posts, the difference appears to be insignificant.

Cyberia-Mix said:
And I don't really mind the tags being largely misused. A lot of popular tags are the same.

this is very true. almost all of us experience this one way or another. but i think that is the very nature of this forum addressing problems like this. as i understand tag alias, it helps curating, organizing, and managing posts. being more user-friendly and searchable.

if im an ordinary user, i'm limited to 2 search tags only e.g. frills and frilled_skirt. or i can be more specific and use the name of the popular character instead of frilled_skirt. it will search the database for 10000+ posts. a couple or more hundred entries were the result. i scanned all 10 pages but did not find it. the tagger who curated the post being more specific or simply more familiar with the term used ruffles instead.

that's just a hypothetical case but it's very realistic. considering that the tag alias ruffles -> frills issue was raised more a year ago way before me, highlights the fact that the old folks before anticipated such problem. back then it was only 200+. but now it's considerably large. and since many tags are misused, then there's no point of maintaining the difference between the two. continue separate them and we isolate a large part of curated articles. i checked ruffles. it has about 700 entries.

i hope we could reach a resolution soon.

Updated

hungkok2007 said:
Does this have any implications for frilled_bikini pics?

Yes. Anything under frilled_X can actually be ruffled instead of frilled (though ruffles are rare in general so).

We're certainly not going to split all these tags, so the next thing to do would be to let frills implicated everywhere and manually adding ruffles where apprioriate.
This would make impossible to see these posts when looking for ruffles -frills however.
Another solution would be to have ruffles implicating frills. We'd become unable to search for ruffles alone but I don't think it really matters.

Now onto the name I agree that it's counterintuitive to have frills and ruffles apart when they're synonymous.
According to the above I would thus suggest:
- moving ruffles -> frills_(integral)
- aliasing ruffles -> frills
- implicating frills_(integral) -> frills

Also, post #915736.

i think you're suggestion above greatly solves the issue and future taggers will be spared of confusion/dilemma we are having now.

but what does moving ruffles -> frills_(integral) mean? do you mean emptying the ruffles posts? and moving those entries to frilled_(specific article)?

there are about 700+ entries. it's quite large really. maybe, just maybe i can clean this up if there is no time limit.

This solution fails for a few reasons. For one it fails to resolve the unfinished issue in the first thread on this topic where frills might be used as a super-set of lace or fringe in addition to ruffles.

Secondly the definition you are trying to follow defined "fringe" as a unessential extension to fabric. Saying that a ruffle is an "integrated" fringe despite the fact that it actually is a characteristic of the body of the garment defies this definition. You are saying all gathered fabrics (including those that aren't extensions) are extensions.

Third using fringe_(integral) adds another arguably more opaque term into the fray making things even more complicated rather than simpler and easier to use. People aren't going to use the term directly, and since it runs counter to more people's definitions you are going to have more issues with it's usage.

In my opinion we should just use the layman's definitions I laid out back in forum #19178 with specific definitions for ruffles, fringe, and lace, and using frills as a catch-all for any decorative embellishment. The one change to make it meet Bapabooie's definition would be to say that not all ruffles are frills if they happen to describe the main body of the garnment.

Alternatively, we could use gathers (as mentioned in the second thread) for "ruffles" of that sort, say all true ruffles are also frills, and implicate ruffles, and fringe to frills to enforce it as a super-set. (EDIT: I had included lace here, but lace need not be a fabric extension, so I removed it)

Combining things to fit a more generally accepted definition makes more sense to me than making finer and finer esoteric and contentious subdivisions.

Updated

I haven't mentionned fringe anywhere.

About the super-set, all definitions of frills I can find agree that the material is pleated. lace and fringe typically aren't. I don't see the point of mixing them with frills, even more so when they're so visually disctinct. I thought this point had been resolved long ago actually.
You'd find post #942605, post #943271 and post #374654 under the same tag. I don't see how this is convenient nor who would search for all three at the same time.

Shinjidude said:
Alternatively, we could use gathers (as mentioned in the second thread) for "ruffles" of that sort, say all true ruffles are also frills, and implicate ruffles, and fringe to frills to enforce it as a super-set.

Are you saying to implicate gathers to frills or to keep gathers separate (in which case I don't get what ruffles are anymore)?

Cyberia-Mix said:
I haven't mentionned fringe anywhere.

About the super-set, all definitions of frills I can find agree that the material is pleated. lace and fringe typically aren't.

The whole point I brought that first thread up for was that there is a workable definition of frills that doesn't require ruffles, gathers or pleats, and that that point was never resolved. Lace and fringe are visually distinct but are included in that definition. It would be used to tag and find all clothing with unessential decorative edging.

Cyberia-Mix said:
Are you saying to implicate gathers to frills or to keep gathers separate (in which case I don't get what ruffles are anymore)?

I am saying to keep gathers separate as the equivalent of your frills_(integral). By the definition of "frills" I am most used to, the word wouldn't apply in that case at all. "Ruffles" (seperated from "gathers") in this scenerio then would be just ruffled edging on fabric (not as part of the main body of the garment).

To be honest this doesn't matter that much to me, I'd just like to see that we have a system consistent with itself and as much as possible with the dictionary definitions, and real-world usage.

The definitions I am working with from Dictionary.com. I swear they were different before, but they now even more closely reflect my understanding of the term.

frill
–noun
1.
a trimming, as a strip of cloth or lace, gathered at one edge and left loose at the other; ruffle.
2.
something resembling such a trimming, as the fringe of hair on the chest of some dogs.

The definition allows for trim such as fringe and explicitly mentions lace and ruffles. Nowhere does it require or even mention pleating.

Updated

Cyberia-Mix said:
Yes. It's an automatic task launched by an admin...

it's a relief to hear that some things can be automated. though it's still humanly possible to run through it, it'll just consume much time if done by hand. thanks for clarifying.

Shinjidude said:
This solution fails for a few reasons.

based on my limited understanding, i think Cyberia-Mix's suggestion somewhat worked out the tag alias ruffles -> frills dilemma. the ruffles wiki entry existed without proper definition and isolated. but if the automated process goes on, it can now be safely assimilated into frills. i believe people are more familiar with frills than ruffles considering the volume of posts of the former over the later; in contrast to the original and older thread proposing the opposite.

regarding fringe and lace, they both seemed to have proper definitions enough to keep them separate from the rest. but the lace wiki definition needs ironing out if the alias ruffles -> frills is going to proceed. the "Cloth with holes sewn into it" makes it distinct enough. i guess, that part will remain. just going to fix when it mentions frills and ruffles. using different words when referring to the same thing confuses a lot of readers.

the fringe entry of "Dangling fabric cut into strips or bits of cording", i think is distinct enough. more so with the inclusion of native american outfits.

i would suggest that we modify all terms concerned and add a particular post as a good visual example for taggers.

Shinjidude said:
Lace and fringe are visually distinct but are included in that definition.

i see what you mean and that brings us to redefine frills, i guess, right?

our current danbooru wiki for frills is clearly adapted from dictionary.com's definition. it mentions lace. this is a tricky part. danbooru entry for lace is not from dictionary.com.

lace from danbooru: "Cloth with holes sewn into it, used as decorative trim"

lace from dictionary.com: "a netlike ornamental fabric made of threads by hand or machine."

i think this is a result of conflict of interests and different sources. i don't say the dictionary is wrong, but we already adapted a term to suit our needs, danbooru needs. so we must have a sort of consistency and in order to resolve this, we must redefine frills that will not collide with lace since it was mentioned in the very definition of frills.

but ruffles was mentioned as a synonym right?

dictionary.com says: "a strip of cloth, lace, etc., drawn up by gathering along one edge and used as a trimming on a dress, blouse, etc."

again, another point of conflict. my suggestion is to adapt a definition that doesn't mention lace, since we at danbooru has its own definition with it. ruffle has a meaning to make a surface uneven or break the smoothness, thus "pleated" as Cyberia-Mix said. i propose we use this frills definition from thefreedictionary.com: "A ruffled, gathered, or pleated border or projection, such as a fabric edge used to trim clothing"

same meaning in context, but it did not mention the word lace. and helpfully it even mentions "ruffled" and if the alias pushes through, this new meaning is no problem.

how about ruffles? in the same dictionary it states: "A strip of frilled or closely pleated fabric used for trimming or decoration." ruffles and frills in perfect harmony of each other. lace not even mentioned. no conflict for danbooru purposes. any thoughts so far?

EDIT: just for curiosity's sake i lookup for lace as well, thefreedictionary.com says "A delicate fabric made of yarn or thread in an open weblike pattern." which one do you think suits our needs?

i just want to repeat, that the dictionary.com definitions are not wrong. in fact, all dictionaries i consulted mention ruffles as a synonym for frills always. we just can't use the frills definition in dictionary.com because we have a different meaning for lace.

Updated

Shinjidude said:
I am saying to keep gathers separate as the equivalent of your frills_(integral). By the definition of "frills" I am most used to, the word wouldn't apply in that case at all. "Ruffles" (seperated from "gathers") in this scenerio then would be just ruffled edging on fabric (not as part of the main body of the garment).

So, if I get you right:
- old ruffles becomes gathers (new tag)
- old frills becomes new ruffles
- new frills is now an umbrella consisting of new ruffles (+ lace?) + fringe but not gathers

It's cleaner than my solution I reckon.
However what about the frilled_X tags then?
Since frilled_X tags are currently used for both ruffles and gathers, we need to move the posts with gathers to new tags gathered_X, and rename all frilled_X to ruffled_X so they can now implicate ruffles while gathered_X will implicate gathers.
And then posts previously tagged frilled_X now have 3 tags—ruffled_X, ruffles and frills, mostly so that people can now perform a ~frills ~fringe ~lace search with only one tag.

(Using current tag usages from here on.)

As I said I think this is overkill, and I also think that people confuse current ruffles with frills often enough so that they're more likely to want them together in their search results rather than trimming lace and fringe, even if it's technically less correct.

1 2 3 4