imply nipples_out_of_frame -> out-of-frame_censoring

BUR #61763 is pending approval.

create implication nipples_out_of_frame -> out-of-frame_censoring

I am populating nipples out of frame and out-of-frame censoring is the parent tag.

I don’t necessarily think this tag is useless, but I have serious doubts about it's usage and being implicated to out-of-frame censoring. Besides the posts I just removed where the nipples were clearly not "out-of-frame", out-of-frame censoring is already way overused as it is imo, and adding things like post #11659061 or post #509839 are just going to dilute it even more.

seconded. this is an okay tag but you need to be more selective when populating it (and future taggers need to be more selective when tagging it). i'd expect to see posts like post #472862 where it looks like the areolae are at best a few pixels out of frame, not post #11659061 where practically the whole chest area is out of frame.

Some of these seem like a stretch. post #11659061 might as well be breasts out of frame. I would expect the tag to be full of things like post #10931128 and post #10911386. I guess it gets a bit tricky with small breasts and flat chest unless you can figure out how low is low enough. What about implied nudity then? I think this is usually the tag for this concept anyway except that it also covers more scenarios: see post #11135688, post #10988092, post #10855198 as it relates to your tag proposal. These would qualify for the tag you're proposing, but right now they're implied nudity. They're each obviously kind of just nude but the idea is that they could just be wearing a tube top or a (pretty thin) strapless bikini because "the camera isn't low enough" so there could potentially be some very minimal, maybe revealing clothes. I guess if you see it as a way of nailing down a specific type of this cropped censoring and "nipples" in the tag name is just as a frame of reference for roughly where the cropping should reach, it still might work.

I suppose that some combination of implied nudity and upper_body would suffice. I also found that the utility of the tag is mostly of, as WRS said, "nailing down a specific type of this cropped censoring and "nipples" in the tag name is just as a frame of reference for roughly where the cropping should reach".

As for the point of where the nipples stand, I've retagged a bit. The overtagging is mostly cured by tagging portrait, I think.

It does seem like this tag will primarily apply for large breasts+ because what feels like part of a torso or a breast relies on cleavage. I would propose that if there is a third of the breast visible (cleavage or sideboob), it should qualify. I find it hard to tag smaller breasts because I don't know whether to imagine the breasts sagging a little or not. Like should post #5049328 qualify?