Danbooru

Tag implication: swim_trunks -> swimsuit

Posted under Tags

Markgraf said:

Yes, I think the same when I translate the term.
And since we have one-piece_swimsuit....wouldn't it be better to change the swimsuit tag to swim_wear?
Right now, swimwear is aliased to swimsuit, but maybe this alias should be changed?

That's what I've been thinking too. Aliasing swimsuit to swimwear would be good but there gonna be some effort involved with the posts that dont have full body swimsuits.

NWF_Renim said:

There wasn't any discussion on that, and that implication was also pushed by the OP. topic #12413.

I'm not trying to push anything, I just thought that since the swimsuit wiki mentions male swimwear it would be logical. ;)

But yes, "swimwear" would describe the gamut of swimming wear better than just "swimsuit". I wouldn't call bikinis "suits" either. ;)

Ehh, wait, what's with all those formal requests? We did not agree on anything yet. There's no point in making requests like these when the discussion is still ongoing. You should wait at least few days to give other contributors and mods a chance to voice their opinion.

So far I don't see much benefit in changing the alias direction and discontinuing the swimsuit tag. Yeah, swimwear would also cover swim_briefs and swim_trunks, but is it really better than what we have now?

With this change we won't have an umbrella tag for female swimsuits. And such tag can be quite useful, particularly for atypical swimsuits that don't fall under one of the other major swimsuit tags (bikini, one-piece_swimsuit, school_swimsuit). For example see post #2313096, post #1025773 and some other in pool #10485.
There are sling_bikini and string_bikini which, despite their name, look distinct from both bikini and one-piece swimsuits. And then we have ones like in post #518122, post #956596, post #2303185, which look like something middle between string and sling swimsuits, but don't quite fall under either.

In case we want an umbrella tag for swim_trunks and swim_briefs, we can use male_swimwear. It would also serve as a counterpart to swimsuit.

There is still discussion on going. So I fail to understand your first paragraph.

But more important:
Why don't you see any benefit? Swimwear is an umbrella for all kinds of swimwear (Nice sentence btw. which would be sufficient as an explanation). So I don't see your complain of not havin a female swimsuit umbrella tag. It would just add male swimwear to this bulk. That's pretty beneficial and if someone want to search for bikini, sling bkinis etc. then one don't search with swimwear but with bikini.
And if someone don't want to have swim trunks in there, there are always some ways like add -swim_trunks.

And for your examples: That's exactly this pool IS for: For swimsuits that are exceptional. So this would even be a reason for this change since there is a way to find those things.

Apparently you didn't quite understood my previous post. I've specifically explained that there are (female) swimsuits that do not fall under other swimsuit tags. You also missed that sling_bikini and string_bikini do not implicate bikini because sling is a distinct type and string can also apply to different types.

Anyway, I've tried to explain that swimsuit is useful the way it is now. Losing it would cause inconvenience since swimwear is quite a bit more broad. Besides including briefs and trunks, swimwear would also cover swim_cap and probably some other stuff that one may not be looking for while searching for swimsuits. Negating these things is not a good option because you are rather likely to miss valid posts as a result.

Additionally, this change requires breaking multiple aliases and implications, and then creating multiple other aliases and implications. All with huge tags. I do not think that it is worth the trouble.

I've even suggested an alternative that is both simple and painless to implement.

MyrMindservant said:

Apparently you didn't quite understood my previous post. I've specifically explained that there are (female) swimsuits that do not fall under other swimsuit tags. You also missed that sling_bikini and string_bikini do not implicate bikini because sling is a distinct type and string can also apply to different types.

Anyway, I've tried to explain that swimsuit is useful the way it is now. Losing it would cause inconvenience since swimwear is quite a bit more broad. Besides including briefs and trunks, swimwear would also cover swim_cap and probably some other stuff that one may not be looking for while searching for swimsuits. Negating these things is not a good option because you are rather likely to miss valid posts as a result.

Additionally, this change requires breaking multiple aliases and implications, and then creating multiple other aliases and implications. All with huge tags. I do not think that it is worth the trouble.

I've even suggested an alternative that is both simple and painless to implement.

You say I didn't understood it but I just gave you a counter argument. Please stop that, this achieves nothing.

Then just tag it with swimwear or add this to that pool.

Btw. your reasoning with the swim cap is not that cool. If that's the tag definition, then this has to be added. Btw. this is even an extreme good argument for turning this alias the other way round: It is not a swimsuit, but it is used for swimming. What the searcher's intention is when they search for that tag is not that big of an argument in my eyes. They have to read the definiton.

And of course this is work, but the aliases and implication can be done in...5 minutes if an admin is here. That isn't much of work. And so much trouble...I don't see that trouble.

We can additionally add this tag and create the swimwear tag. That is indeed a very good idea.
Because that way, all male swimwears are included and can simply be excluded if someone don't want to search for it.

And further: If we are strict, the bikini doesn't fit the definition of an swimsuit, since a swimsuit is designed to cover the complete torso (except sling bikinis, whicj I consider as swimsuits, too.)
So this change would bring more consistency in the swimwear area.

The bulk update request #668 has been rejected.

covers:
remove implication swim_briefs -> swimsuit
remove implication tankini -> swimsuit
remove implication bikini -> swimsuit
remove implication sling_bikini -> swimsuit

Updated

create implication swim_briefs -> male_swimwear
create implication swim_trunks -> male_swimwear
create implication male_swimwear -> swimwear

Link to request

Should be obvious.
_____________________

Ugg, why isn't the tankini/bikini (basically the same thing) and swim briefs implication removed?
I thought it would be nice to now imply (not alias) swimsuit to swimwear, but bikinis and the other thing do not cover (in my eyes) the swimsuit term, so this steps back for now.

There doesn't seem to be a point in removing the bikini/tankini implications, as swimsuit is more commonly understood as "female swimwear" (and that matches our tagging use of the tag, as opposed to our wiki's definition). While the term may have "suit" in it, that alone seems to be a poor argument to say that things like bikinis aren't under it.

Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Simple Definition of swimsuit: special clothing that women and girls wear for swimming

You can reapply to remove the swim_briefs tag, but I rejected the whole because the majority of the request was rejected.

1 2