Posted under General
Shinjidude said:
Here's what I got:
- crossed_legs: 1333
- indian_style: 209
- crossed_legs_(lying): 52
- crossed_legs_(standing): 17
- Total: 1611
I just noticed you actually went through those 80 pages to check and edit everything. Pretty nice job.
I've added the new tags to the posture tag group.
EDIT: we're still missing the sitting_on → sitting_on_person alias, and the sitting_on_person > sitting implication as well.
Updated by Cyberia-Mix
Cyberia-Mix said: EDIT: we're still missing the sitting_on → sitting_on_person alias, and the sitting_on_person > sitting implication as well.
Had to remove some non-people sitting from sitting_on first, but done.
Would we have some tag for these kinds of pose? I'm hesitant to count this as seiza with the legs spacing.
Cyberia-Mix said:
Would we have some tag for these kinds of pose? I'm hesitant to count this as seiza with the legs spacing.
I think that would be wariza, as per forum #36355.
I wouldn't count this as wariza since her legs are under her thighs. :\
Would be nice if we could use it for all the in between cases like post #457631 too.
Updated by Cyberia-Mix
They are borderline cases, like the ones with someone sitting and leaning forward so their butt is off the ground. I'd probably say both of those are close enough to wariza to count.
I wouldn't call them seiza because that's traditionally more rigid and formal, wariza is supposed to be an informal style, and as such it makes less sense to apply a real strict definition to it.
Shinjidude said:
I wouldn't call them seiza because that's traditionally more rigid and formal, wariza is supposed to be an informal style, and as such it makes less sense to apply a real strict definition to it.
Makes sense. Since it's easy enough to distinguish from wariza though, it would be useful to have some identifier nonetheless.
Like the other borderline cases, I think I'll be using wariza + kneeling for these then, considering the character isn't resting on her butt and thighs.
> Now for something different, as OP tackled already, would it be reasonable to alias all the current X_sitting tags to sitting_on_X for general consistency purposes?
That is:
face_sitting → sitting_on_face
head_sitting → sitting_on_head
lap_sitting → sitting_on_lap
pillow_sitting → sitting_on_pillow
tree_sitting → sitting_on_tree
and just leaving pantyshot_sitting as is.
That would be more natural that way, especially now that we have the general sitting_on_person implication for the first three, and we'd have an established semantics for potential future sitting tags.
And it's super convenient to have everything listed in line with the tag autocompleter, without having any other tag to look for elsewhere (and actually the first reason that made me think of this).
Cyberia-Mix said:
tree_sitting → sitting_on_tree
The posts under that tag look more like sitting_IN_tree.
Fine. That's still more consistent than tree_sitting.
EDIT: post #455425
I'm pretty sure I've seen a tag for this case but I can't remember. I could suggest frog_sitting otherwise, but regarding what I just said, ugh...
Updated by Cyberia-Mix
Cyberia-Mix said:
> Now for something different, as OP tackled already, would it be reasonable to alias all the current X_sitting tags to sitting_on_X for general consistency purposes?
That is:
face_sitting → sitting_on_face
head_sitting → sitting_on_head
lap_sitting → sitting_on_lap
pillow_sitting → sitting_on_pillow
tree_sitting → sitting_on_tree
and just leaving pantyshot_sitting as is.
You know now that I think about it, and apologies if this has been discussed before, I don't really understand why we have a panyshot_sitting tag. It is a tag that is a literal combination of two other tags and whose contents can be found by said two-tag search. Is it really necessary?
I think it has as much value as any other combo-tag, such as plaid_skirt, striped_thighhighs, or short_twintails, as it labels a common confluence. For that reason I'd say it's worth keeping.
Eld said: You know now that I think about it, and apologies if this has been discussed before, I don't really understand why we have a panyshot_sitting tag. It is a tag that is a literal combination of two other tags and whose contents can be found by said two-tag search. Is it really necessary?
panchira_sit was a pretty ancient tag (there's one on a post from March 2007, post #477 thus a very early one), and got updated to pantyshot_sitting when many object tags went to English.
I guess that doesn't directly answer the "why it's here now" but rather "why it exists at all".
Oh and... sitting_on/in_* does sound better. I'll do those. in for tree (on aliased to it), on for the rest.
Updated by jxh2154
Looks like the facesitting → sitting_on_face alias didn't go through.
evazion said:
Looks like the facesitting → sitting_on_face alias didn't go through.
Oh, looks like I did face_sitting but not facesitting. Done.
It seems yokozuwari was forgotten in this discussion. Along the same lines as wariza and seiza, yokozuwari is a form of sitting and ought to implicate it.
Implication:
yokozuwari -> sitting
