Posted under Tags
create implication dress_shirt -> collared_shirt
dress shirt wiki says that it's a collared shirt with fastened buttons on it. So, yeah.
EDIT: This tag implication has been rejected because it was not approved within 60 days.
EDIT: The tag implication dress_shirt -> collared_shirt has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.
Updated by DanbooruBot
I#m unsure about this. What about posts that are showing the character from behind, like in post #2333290?
Provence said:
I#m unsure about this. What about posts that are showing the character from behind, like in post #2333290?
We don't know if it's a collared shirt or not. Even I don't know why you're tagging it as dress shirt at the first place. The buttons aren't visible.
I know, it's an office lady, so logically she will wear a dress shirt, but it can also be a normal white shirt. The 'tag what you see, not what you know' principle really fits here.
Yes, it could. And what is about shirts from a company?
post #2277117
I get what you want, but the definition is too thight in these cases. Employee uniforms like these are dress shirts.
Same thing with buttons, although your request doesn't call them.
post #2445742
Yes, it could. And what is about shirts from a company?
post #2277117
I get what you want, but the definition is too thight in these cases. Employee uniforms like these are dress shirts.
Like I said before, tagging it with *_shirt (* = any color) is enough. When people searching for dress shirt, surely people want an actual dress shirt with buttons and collar visible, not shirts with implications of a dress shirt.
For that post, I think the employee uniform tag is already covering that. I mean, from lurker's perspective, if you want to search Kashima's picture with Lawson uniform, normally you put employee uniform on search box, not dress shirt
Same thing with buttons, although your request doesn't call them.
post #2445742
To be honest, Koakuma's clothing is always confusing for me to tag. Her attire is varies from each posts, sometimes a dress shirt, sometimes black_vest, or even sometimes a skirt_suit
======================================
But of course, I don't enforce this to you. I need everyone's opinion about this matter.
I was about to create this implication only to find that it was already suggested here.
Personally I'm on the side of Sacriven on the 'tag what you see, not what you know' rule, so I don't think post #2277117 would warrant dress shirt because the collar isn't visible, as said above, even if the uniform is known to be one by other people.
The only complication I have with implicating buttons to dress shirt is when users would assume the shirt to have buttons and tag the post with dress shirt even if they aren't seen, such as in post #2732212 and post #2730105. Granted that it would be a wonder how the shirt is fastened closed in the first place, the buttons may just have been left out or forgotten by the artist.
kiyah123 said:
I suppose so, given that the definition requires it.
I guess there will cases where the buttons aren't visible. Just like unbuttoned does not imply buttons.
But as long as the buttons holes are visible, I think it's enough.
And I was against this implication because of the buttons part. But I think I didn't think thoroughly through this, so I probably don't have any objections against this implication request.
Provence said:
Do we want to let dress shirt imply buttons, too?
No. There are circumstances in which a shirt's buttons may not visible yet any reasonable individual would still conclude that it is a dress shirt. The shirt in post #2728905, for instance. You can tell from the cut of the shirt and its buttonholes what kind of shirt it is without seeing buttons.
Also, do we really want to tag visible buttons indiscriminately with little regard for how detailed or prominent they are? Personally, I treat that tag much like eyebrows or lips, reserving it for buttons more distinctive than just tiny solid-colored circles. The buttons on post #2358213, post #2551638, and post #2701085 are all drawn and shaded in detail and add visual interest to their images, so they should definitely be tagged. By contrast, the buttons on post #2054049 and post #2712082 are hardly noteworthy. Tagging them would only add noise to buttons searches and make it harder to find buttons that actually look like buttons.
iridescent_slime said:
Also, do we really want to tag visible buttons indiscriminately with little regard for how detailed or prominent they are? Personally, I treat that tag much like eyebrows or lips, reserving it for buttons more distinctive than just tiny solid-colored circles.
I didn't think that the buttons tag was so subjective, personally I'd tag it if it's there (however minute it's detail is) and won't tag it if it's not. With eyebrows and lips I can understand since the wiki for the former requires thick eyebrows or eyebrows that stand out from the norm which is up to the tagger; for lips, well, rarely do you find artists here who do emphasise these.
I digress though, I hadn't thought of the button holes on the shirt, like you said I think that it would be enough evidence for a shirt 'fastened with buttons'. So the button implication on dress shirt shouldn't be.
Updated
kiyah123 said:
I didn't think that the buttons tag was so subjective, personally I'd tag it if it's there (however minute it's detail is) and won't tag it if it's not.
That's exactly the sort of tag-every-last-insignificant-thing-no-matter-what ethic I've been trying to get away from. If something in an image is distinctive enough that its presence makes the image more unique, then by all means, tag it. But tiny things like buttons are in most cases irrelevant. When someone is interested in seeing buttons in particular rather than just clothing that happens to have buttons, I honestly can't imagine that they would want to find their search results packed with almost every single post that has ever featured a dress shirt or cardigan or blazer. Because in most of those cases, the buttons themselves are so far from being the focus of the image that they could have been omitted entirely without appreciably affecting it overall.
I just wanted to clarify my stance on this because, even if for some reason we assumed that every post with a dress shirt always had visible buttons, I'd still be opposed to this implication.
iridescent_slime said:
That's exactly the sort of tag-every-last-insignificant-thing-no-matter-what ethic I've been trying to get away from. If something in an image is distinctive enough that its presence makes the image more unique, then by all means, tag it. But tiny things like buttons are in most cases irrelevant.
I'd argue that if the artist took the time to even draw these 'irrelevant' details that it'd be noteworthy. Sure, not taking the time to notice it is fine, but it is there, whether the artist wanted it to be a part of the bigger picture (pun not intended) or not. To each to their own though, I understand people who would want to get the best images relating to their tag search, but I'd say they should take the good with the bad (pronounced buttons or unpronounced buttons in this case).
Still in agreement that buttons shouldn't be implicated anyway.
Technically this implication seems valid, but this would cause collared_shirt tag to explode - see dress_shirt -collared_shirt, it's pages upon pages of results. I'll need a second opinion before approving this. @Hillside_Moose @NWF_Renim
I think it might be worthwhile considering readjusting the definition of dress_shirt a bit before considering this implication. Right now the tag seems to be used for all button shirts with a collar, but perhaps the tag should be spun into at least two tags, one for all button up shirts (both w/ or w/o collars) and one that covers formal dress shirts (such as restricting it to shirts with 0 pockets or 1 left-side pocket). This would serve to weed out some of the images currently in the dress_shirt population of images, and would prevent the tag from being nothing more than a combo of two extremely basic concepts (button shirt and collar shirt), which would run the inherent risk of becoming a two-tag search replacement.
The tag implication dress_shirt -> collared_shirt has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.
