Implicating single_thighhigh -> asymmetrical_clothing.
Reason: Single thighhigh is an example of asymmetrical clothing.
Updated by Cyberia-Mix
Posted under General
Implicating single_thighhigh -> asymmetrical_clothing.
Reason: Single thighhigh is an example of asymmetrical clothing.
Updated by Cyberia-Mix
Do images of a character in a state of undress (ie dressing or undressing) also fall under asymmetrical_clothing? There are some images already tagged both dressing asymmetrical_clothing or undressing asymmetrical_clothing, commonly because of the single_thighhigh tag. This doesn't really seem right, given that the only reason the character is getting asymmetrical_clothing isn't because their outfit is asymmetrical, but because they're in the middle of undressing. The outfit isn't truly asymmetrical, it isn't quite the same as an outfit that is truly asymmetrical (ie there is a difference between images like post #218285 and post #627895 [note her footwear]).
I agree with NWF Renim here, because there are exceptions like these an implication would be a bad idea.
Also to what degree does an outfit have to be asymmetrical to be tagged as such? Fred1515 suggests implicating all the single_* tags, but something like single_glove with an otherwise symmetrical outfit doesn't feel to me as if it deserves asymmetrical_clothing either.
Check forum #26879.
The idea was for a tag that would be implicated by all the tags for "things like one leg has a thighigh on it and the other leg doesn't" and that's how I (and apparently others) use it, with jxh's approval.
It seems it should have been discussed more.
jxh2154 said:
An implication could work if we specifically defined the single_ tags as being only usable in an image that site asymmetrical_clothing criteria but I guess that's a bit of circular logic.
No, I would agree with such a stipulation. Assuming you meant "fit" rather than "site", or something.
I'm against the idea of trying to make all the single tags have to meet the criteria for asymmetrical_clothing. Frankly I think there is a lot of problems with pretty much all the single tags implying asymmetrical_clothing.
I think asymmetrical_clothing should mean that the outfit as a whole is asymmetrical with multiple items making it asymmetrical instead of lone items. For the most part, with exceptions, individual articles of clothing do not by themselves make a character's outfit asymmetrical. If they did, then that would mean that every person wearing a wristwatch, single garter, or armband would qualify for asymmetrical_clothing. Such a definition would not only rapidly fill the tag, it'd fill it with things that people looking for real asymmetrical outfits would not be looking for and drown out those that should receive the tag.
There are likely tons of images of characters wearing one shoe, or wearing one sock... but to label it asymmetrical because of such a minor item seems like a poor choice. A single thighhigh at least has a lot more weight on the appearance of the image, but there are plenty situations where I do not think it should be labeled asymmetrical for every depiction. Right now the only single item that has the weight in an image to make it asymmetrical is single_pantsleg, but that unlike socks or shoes makes up a large portion of the image, and isn't as readily removed.
Seconding NWF_Renim on everything. I don't think you'd be happy to find all of these when searching for asymmetrical_clothing.
The problem is you already find all these when searching for asymmetrical_clothing because that's how the tag was intended to be used when it was created.
How about we use asymmetrical_clothing only for truly asymmetrical outfits like post #627895 or post #15084 and move the current asymmetrical_clothing to something that could be more conveniently implicated?
Updated by Fred1515