Danbooru

Wiki Requests

Posted under General

Wanted to know how to define flight_deck. I've been trying to Google a definition, but I'm getting two different meanings depending on if we're talking about aeronautical or naval carriers:

1. On an aircraft carrier, the flight deck is the flat open surface on the deck where aircraft take off and land.
2. On a large aeroplane, the flight deck is the area at the front where the pilot works and where all the controls are.

The definition for aeronautics seems to fit more with a cockpit, so would flight_deck be for the naval terminology?

Benit149 said:

The definition for aeronautics seems to fit more with a cockpit, so would flight_deck be for the naval terminology?

Yes. Mixing terminology can only lead to confusion, so all aircraft "flight decks" should be tagged cockpit, with flight deck reserved for the decks of aircraft carriers.

It's worth mentioning, though, that in practice flight deck is almost exclusively used for the rigging worn by kantai collection shipgirls and similar characters from other copyrights. There are comparatively few posts tagged aircraft_carrier flight_deck and many of those are mistagged.

iridescent_slime said:

Yes. Mixing terminology can only lead to confusion, so all aircraft "flight decks" should be tagged cockpit, with flight deck reserved for the decks of aircraft carriers.

It's worth mentioning, though, that in practice flight deck is almost exclusively used for the rigging worn by kantai collection shipgirls and similar characters from other copyrights. There are comparatively few posts tagged aircraft_carrier flight_deck and many of those are mistagged.

I did notice the rigging tag in use to define the Kantai Collection rigging though.

Chiera said:

The kyuubi tag should only be used when really all nine tails are visible, right?
I ask because there are multiple posts where the character has for example 6 tails: post #2888367

*Sigh*

It doesn't matter if all the tails aren't visible, more than anything it refers to the style in which multiple tails are displayed in abundance, usually followed by accompanying superset tags (fox tail + multiple tails). Unless it's a forked tail, then it's more than safe to say that applies there.

Now don't inquire so much about what you disagree with because I tagged what I saw. Pedantry being the chore it is, if it needs clarification then you'll get your clarification. Christ.

Mikaeri said:

*Sigh*

It doesn't matter if all the tails aren't visible, more than anything it refers to the style in which multiple tails are displayed in abundance, usually followed by accompanying superset tags (fox tail + multiple tails). Unless it's a forked tail, then it's more than safe to say that applies there.

Now don't inquire so much about what you disagree with because I tagged what I saw. Pedantry being the chore it is, if it needs clarification then you'll get your clarification. Christ.

I ask about the wiki's definition and it seems pretty adamant about the nine part.
So I asked if we should use it strictly or not.

To be honest, I think if it applies to also non ninetailed fox girls then this tag seems kinda redundant to me, because then you have just a different tag that can be covered with fox_tail multiple_tails.

Chiera said:

I ask about the wiki's definition and it seems pretty adamant about the nine part.
So I asked if we should use it strictly or not.

To be honest, I think if it applies to also non ninetailed fox girls then this tag seems kinda redundant to me, because then you have just a different tag that can be covered with fox_tail multiple_tails.

So you're going to attempt to kill off a tag that describes a stylistic appearance just because you think it doesn't describe anything more than that which is already described by other tags, hmmk.

While I understand that notion somewhat, this is an entirely different matter concerning the two. How, then, would one differentiate between a forked tail and multiple tails that are nowhere near in count to an actual kyuubi? Do you assume that the artist must *always* draw them (all nine tails) for the tag to be applied? How about you tag everything upper_body bikini with -bikini bikini_top then?

Updated

Mikaeri said:

So you're going to attempt to kill off a tag that describes a stylistic appearance just because you think it doesn't describe anything more than that which is already described by other tags, hmmk.

While I understand that notion somewhat, this is an entirely different matter concerning the two. How, then, would one differentiate between a forked tail and multiple tails that are nowhere near in count to an actual kyuubi? Do you assume that the artist must *always* draw them for the tag to be applied? How about you tag everything upper_body bikini with -bikini bikini_top then?

I simply guess that this is not really useful outside nine-tailed foxes. How are you going to find true nine-tailed foxes then?
We have a forked tail tag, too.

And about the bikini top: That is exactly how bikini top should be used.
You don't tag bikini if only one component is visible^^.

Updated

Chiera said:

I simply guess that this is not really useful outside nine-tailed foxes. How are you going to find true nine-tailed foxes then?
We have a forked tail tag, too.

And about the bikini top: That is exactly how bikini top should be used.
You don't tag bikini if only one component is visible^^.

facepalm...

Alright, go do that then. See what happens.

Mikaeri said:

facepalm...

Alright, go do that then. See what happens.

Why facepalm, though?
If you only see the upper part of a bikini, use bikini top. Respectively for bikini bottom. This is logical because bikini even has in it's name that it consists of two parts, right?

From the bikini bottom wiki:

Denotes that the character is wearing only the panty part of a bikini, the panty part doesn't match the top, or only the panty part is visible.

On the issue of kyuubi, there is a lot of redundancy between it and a fox_tail multiple_tails search, but I don't think that is grounds for either nuking the tag or forcing the tag to only be applicable to images where exactly 9 tails are depicted. It may be worthwhile to require that the images have to depict a minimum number of tails to use the kyuubi tag though. Once you start getting a lot of tails depicted in the images, they become more or less similar and the general point of drawing many (even if not exactly 9) is to refer explicitly to the nine-tailed fox concept. As a suggestion, perhaps the lower threshold for what should be tagged as kyuubi as opposed to simply fox_tail multiple_tail be around 5 tails minimum to use the tag. Once you start hitting 4 tails or lower, the kyuubi reference feels a lot weaker and there is generally space enough to depict more than 4 if you're aiming to specifically reference the kyuubi imagery.

As for the bikini argument, I'd think even if the top or the bottom is missing, it should be able to classified as a bikini swimsuit as long as the rest of the image or outfit would imply the character is/was wearing the full swimsuit. Given as such an image like post #2879289, despite not showing the complete set, imo is properly tagged bikini because the rest of the image implies she's wearing a bikini swimsuit. Alternatively something like post #845054, despite only depicting a bikini top, shouldn't be tagged bikini because we know that with her complete outfit she's not wearing the complete swimsuit and that it's part of a non-swimsuit outfit. Otherwise I feel this will cause a big problem for tag searches like topless bikini and bottomless bikini, which imo are correct and appropriate combinations for searches.

NWF_Renim said:

As for the bikini argument, I'd think even if the top or the bottom is missing, it should be able to classified as a bikini swimsuit as long as the rest of the image or outfit would imply the character is/was wearing the full swimsuit. Given as such an image like post #2879289, despite not showing the complete set, imo is properly tagged bikini because the rest of the image implies she's wearing a bikini swimsuit. Alternatively something like post #845054, despite only depicting a bikini top, shouldn't be tagged bikini because we know that with her complete outfit she's not wearing the complete swimsuit and that it's part of a non-swimsuit outfit. Otherwise I feel this will cause a big problem for tag searches like topless bikini and bottomless bikini, which imo are correct and appropriate combinations for searches.

The wiki entry for bikini bottom exists since 7 years and this part is unchanged since then, though.
So you'd say it should get changed then?

But it really doesn't make much sense this way. The bikini tag should be used when the whole set is visible, i.e. bottom + top as mentioned in the wiki.
It really doesn't help when the bikini search contains only the top/bottom and there are even seperate tags for these concepts, like a black bikini top that should be used when 1. the bikini is mismatched or 2. only the top is visible and a lot of posts are currently tagged this way and one can't see the lower part.
So there definitely needs to be some gardening then.
The whole bikini is messed up, though. There is stuff like side-tie_bikini implying bikini while front-tie_bikini doesn't and topic #14333 also goes more into the direction that bikini top/bottom tagging should become more refined.

Updated

@NWF_Renim @Mikaeri
There probably is another point to the kyuubi tag that we probably haven't covered, yet:
The kitsune tag.

A male or female with all nine tails would usually be classified as a kyuubi.

-> The kyuubi tag is really only for fox girls/boys that really have ninte tails. Otherwise there is a kitsune tag.
Speaking of redundancy: Might really be there if kitsune is just fox_tail multiple_tails, but I assume it can also apply to the animal fox that possesses more than one tail, right?

Updated

1 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 52