Posted under General
Currently, the flat_chest wiki reads:
For use with older characters which do not look loli, and are not a child, as using it on loli/child tagged posts is redundant, in most cases.
For posts simply child, I'd agree that flat-chestedness isn't really a focal point of those images, but since loli is sexualized, would there be objection to removing the, er, redundancy clause from the wiki?
Tangentially, would flat-chestedness be desirably tagged on [sexualized] trap images?
Updated by jxh2154
I don't think it'd be good for traps, they're all flat chested no matter what (otherwise it's futa and there aren't many fake breasts, actually none that I remember), but lolis can have breasts so I think we should tag lolis as flat_chested when it applies. I think we already do that don't we?
I'm mostly asking for a revision to the wiki, so any taggers who check that wouldn't be dissuaded from fully detailing their tags.
Example of not-flat-chested loli: post #692818
Roarchu said:
I don't think it'd be good for traps, they're all flat chested no matter what
T5J8F8 said:
Example of not-flat-chested loli: post #692818
hmm that doesn't look like loli at all to me
jjj14 said:
post #414704
post #431772
post #307964
I stand corrected
I think the idea of using flat_chest for traps is the wrong idea. It'd be wiser to use a tag to tag traps with breasts, not traps that are flat chested. If you really wanted to have something to find traps with breasts I think there are 3 approaches that could be done. One we could just simply rely on breasts trap searches, there is a quite a bit of noise that makes this only so-so accurate; Two we could make a new tag; three it could made into a pool, which would make it somewhat similar to the Bare-legged Bunny Girl pool (pool #208).
Going with this and applying it to flat_chest and loli, it is probably a better idea to not use flat_chest with loli. While it could be argued that people looking for flat_chest might be also looking for loli images, I'd rather make the assumption that those who would really use the flat_chest tag would be aiming for characters who do not appear loli, and as such both loli images and flat_chest images should be separate. It should be taken that loli characters, as the norm, are flat chested, and that we shouldn't be using flat_chest but a tag like breasts to make distinctions between lolis that do and do not have developed breasts. The 3 options I used for traps, can also be applied here for how we might approach being able to enable breasted lolis to be easily found.
Things in short:
Updated
NWF_Renim said: I think the idea of using flat_chest for traps is the wrong idea. It'd be wiser to use a tag to tag traps with breasts, not traps that are flat chested.
Right, this. No flat_chest on traps.
Going with this and applying it to flat_chest and loli, it is probably a better idea to not use flat_chest with loli.
Yeah, no flat_chest on loli. Really, if there are noteworthy breasts on a girl, then generally that's a big mark against it also being "loli". There can be some exceptions, but by and large, if it's really loli flat chest is assumed as a fairly critical portion of that.
While it could be argued that people looking for flat_chest might be also looking for loli images, I'd rather make the assumption that those who would really use the flat_chest tag would be aiming for characters who do not appear loli
This is true for me. flat_chest is probably my most frequently used general: tag and it's always with a -loli addendum. It should be unnecessary to have to specify the negative, as loli shouldn't be showing up (apart from images with multiple characters). Liking flat or small chests (medium to moderately large is great too but that's neither here not there) and liking lolicon images are entirely different things.
If someone wants flat chests in lolicon images they'll, obviously, be searching loli. Not flat_chest.
While it could be argued that people looking for flat_chest might be also looking for loli images, I'd rather make the assumption that those who would really use the flat_chest tag would be aiming for characters who do not appear loli, and as such both loli images and flat_chest images should be separate.
The only thing that you can safely assume when a person is searching flat_chest is that they're looking for flat chests. Every character with a flat chest should be included in the results, loli or not. If I don't want loli results then I'll add -loli to my search. Don't make that decision for me, thank you very much.
Plus, making loli and flat_chest mutually exclusive leads to the situation where certain characters (izumi_konata, aisaka_taiga, etc) can be tagged flat_chest when they're clothed but not when they're naked. That's just silly.
I guess I can see your point, but I think that indicates then that we need a tag under flat_chest (or a pool) that would be used for characters who are depicted of age that are non-loli and non-child. That's quite a waste of tags to have to always have to use 3 tags flat_chest -child -loli each time to find non-loli, non-child characters. Not sure if the route for your examples would be to also tag them with the new tag in addition to loli, or have some other setup.
FWIW, after swaying from reading, I'm leaning more toward my initial stance of flat_chest with applicable loli since the only people really hampered by how many tags they can search at once can't see loli posts anyway; only those who can put in that sort of tag string are able to see results from that sorta search. Besides, it's not like sick fucks like us deserve such ease of use.
evazion said:
The only thing that you can safely assume when a person is searching flat_chest is that they're looking for flat chests. Every character with a flat chest should be included in the results, loli or not. If I don't want loli results then I'll add -loli to my search. Don't make that decision for me, thank you very much.
This! McThis with a side order of fries!
Though, for me that's females only--so no traps (and no guys, obviously). They are not flat_chest as defined by the tag.
There are <or> searches ~flat_chest ~loli and those with exclusions ~flat_chest ~loli -breasts.
Without necessarily rejecting the motion to change the definition and include loli, I do have to point out that invoking the "visual trumps all" law is dubious here, or at least not nearly as final as it sounds.
Tags are subordinate to our definitions of them above all else. They have to be. If we define it as not being meant for images depicting what are visually young children (as the wiki has read for over 2 years, based on prior forum threads I believe), then the use is consistent with that. And the definition also allows for the reasonable exceptions evazion mentioned.
*shrug* Not sure where I stand on this one, but I will say this: If we really want to go on this route you guys' want to set, then I do believe based on your own reasonings for having this route taken we'd really have no real argument against having shota and loli implicate the child tag. The only reason they're not implicating it is based on the notion that a child depicted in a sexual nature should not be in the same image population as those not depicted sexually, but who are we to be deciding for other's that they can't find both under the child tag? All images of loli and shota contain images applicable to the child tag if we remove the sexual restriction on it. If users are offended by that content, then much like the flat_chested tag, they should simply perform negative searches to remove those images, since users can do a child -shota -loli search or a child rating:s search. Hell, this might even be the better route, as if we use child for visual based only approach we can tag any character with child-like body proportions child, such as many instances of Shana, Taiga, etc. If a user wants to find a character with a flat_chest but without the child-like body proportions they'd get pretty accurate results then from a flat_chest -child search.
NWF_Renim said: If we really want to go on this route you guys' want to set, then I do believe based on your own reasonings for having this route taken we'd really have no real argument against having shota and loli implicate the child tag.
I'll just chime in on this bit anyway and say no, this is a dangerous path to go down, we're not going to change the standing wiki definitions and do this, in case anyone actually thinks it's a good idea.
On the surface it sounds like a rational argument but once you start looking at the implications of a blanket "dictionary definition usage trumps everything" policy it becomes obvious that danbooru cannot work, and never ever has worked, that way. We wouldn't even need a forum for tag discussions if it were that easy. We specifically define some tags as applying in specific circumstances for specific reasons. "child" on danbooru does not mean exactly what Merriam Webster says, it means what Danbooru says.
