Posted under Tags
Well, sure, except that bike_shorts doesn't imply shorts (topic #16986).
nonamethanks said:
Well, sure, except that bike_shorts doesn't imply shorts (topic #16986).
Which is dumb, it really should.
I'm ambivalent on it but there's no consistency right now, because we don't have colored_bike_short tags. 14k posts out of 32k in bike shorts (43%) have the shorts tags due to the various modifier tags.
To me this is just another case of, "Saying something isn't a thing despite literally being called that thing." They're called bike shorts, who is really thinking they're not actually shorts because you usually don't wear underwear under them? That's unintuitive and confusing.
Also despite arguing in favor of a distinction, no one actually established one and populated bike shorts under skirt. Everyone has just been using bike_shorts shorts_under_skirt this whole time.
Updated
The reason this gets argued about is because there are notable and identifiable visual differences between them and shorts. My opinion is that we should just treat bike_shorts as their own thing. Make colour tags for them with maybe a black_bike_shorts -> bike_shorts alias if we're treating them as the default, like with blue jeans -> jeans. We then do a round of tag gardening to make sure they're separated from shorts, which I'm willing to assist with.
Obstetrics said:
Make colour tags for them with maybe a black_bike_shorts -> bike_shorts alias if we're treating them as the default, like with blue jeans -> jeans.
That alias is a bit funny, there is no other colour_jeans tags because they get tagged with colour_pants instead, not even black jeans.
Unbreakable said:
That alias is a bit funny, there is no other colour_jeans tags because they get tagged with colour_pants instead, not even black jeans.
Yeah there's 1k posts under blue_pants jeans.
Obstetrics said:
The reason this gets argued about is because there are notable and identifiable visual differences between them and shorts.
People can keep saying this, but neither of the wikis make this claim. Bike shorts 100% fall under the simple definition provided by shorts, (which should probably be updated since technically skirts do as well), and bike shorts calls them shorts on the very first line and makes no attempt to state they're not actually shorts.
The only benefit I can see for keeping bike shorts separated from shorts is that it'd be possible to search bike_shorts of one color under shorts of another color. Any other case is already searchable since we already have bike shorts under shorts.
On the other hand, keeping them separate means we have to make the bike_shorts equivalent of every single shorts tag. I just don't see the point.
blindVigil said:
To me this is just another case of, "Saying something isn't a thing despite literally being called that thing." They're called bike shorts, who is really thinking they're not actually shorts because you usually don't wear underwear under them? That's unintuitive and confusing.
I'd compare this to how a sports bra isn't a bra.
Whenever we have one of these "These two tags are the same because they share the same root word" discussions, I always imagine what would happen if we called them by a different name. If we called them spats instead of bike shorts, would we still be arguing whether they're the same thing as shorts? After all, we've never had anyone argue that buruma are a type of shorts and that we should get rid of all the *buruma* tags.
As with all of the previous discussions, I still think bike shorts should be separate for shorts. Though the "shorts under skirt" tag is predominantly bike shorts as is. Due to the implication, it's harder to find images of actual shorts being worn under skirts like Misaka Mikoto. But fixing that would require a massive amount of tag cleanup whatever the solution.
A lot of it can be cleaned up via mass updates, for examples bike_shorts solo yellow_shorts -bike_shorts_under_shorts -> bike_shorts solo -shorts yellow_bike_shorts.
If people aren't adding the shorts tag manually to bike_shorts posts, then it should be a fairly painless cleanup.
evazion said:
I'd compare this to how a sports bra isn't a bra.
Whenever we have one of these "These two tags are the same because they share the same root word" discussions, I always imagine what would happen if we called them by a different name. If we called them spats instead of bike shorts, would we still be arguing whether they're the same thing as shorts? After all, we've never had anyone argue that buruma are a type of shorts and that we should get rid of all the *buruma* tags.
At least the sports bra wiki doesn't call it a bra when describing it. They also look different from a typical bra, they share a similar purpose and name, but they're visually distinct. Buruma as well don't look like most shorts, even the shortest shorts usually have some "leg", while buruma usually don't.
Bike shorts, to anyone who doesn't know better, just look like a pair of tight shorts. The more nuanced details like padding aren't visible most of the time, if ever, or are just absent entirely in art. I don't know if having a different name would help, but having the same name certainly isn't.
I don't really care if we keep them separate or not, I just think the distinctions being argued don't really matter to us, the only actual difference visually is that bike shorts are light and form fitting and "real" shorts are heavy and loose. It doesn't help my view that no one followed up on the previous alias removal, making me question what it was even for in the first place. Mostly I'm with NNT on actual solutions, either alias everything but bike shorts and say they're the same, or create all the necessary "*_bike_shorts" tags and make them actually separate instead of just saying they are.
The bulk update request #5964 (forum #189423) has been rejected by @evazion.
On second thought, 4000 out of 6000 shorts under skirt posts are actually bike shorts (bike_shorts shorts_under_skirt), while bike shorts under skirt itself only has 2000 posts. So I guess it is a bit of a pointless distinction, there are more bike shorts under shorts under skirt than under the actual bike shorts under skirt tag.
evazion said:
On second thought, 4000 out of 6000 shorts under skirt posts are actually bike shorts (bike_shorts shorts_under_skirt), while bike shorts under skirt itself only has 2000 posts. So I guess it is a bit of a pointless distinction, there are more bike shorts under shorts under skirt than under the actual bike shorts under skirt tag.
When this BUR was first proposed, bike shorts under skirt was empty, all of them were under shorts under skirt. We can thank Renim for some massive gardening.
