Posted under Tags
What is holding_another tag for and is is any different than holding_person?
It's usages vary like holding_person but also has stuff you wouldn't call holding;
post #4815166: in_palm
post #4781053: lifting_person
post #4823113: carrying
post #4778654: clothes_grab/tug?
post #4817143(Explicit): waist_grab
post #4777282(Explicit Loli): in_palm
post #3535409: lifting_person (also we have lifting_another tag)
BUR #7386 has been approved by @evazion.
create alias holding_another -> holding_person
create alias lifting_another -> lifting_person
If no one has any suggestions about this, how about this?
Although holding_another should be gardened as of the mistags I've explained above.
BUR #7387 has been rejected.
create implication carrying_person -> carrying
create implication carried_breast_rest -> carrying
create implication carrying_under_arm -> carrying
create implication fireman's_carry -> carrying
create implication baby_carry -> carrying
Also just found out while double-checking, what is the difference of carrying and carrying_person?
carrying is "Supporting something or someone, usually with one's arms."
Is carrying_person just "Supporting someone, usually with one's arms."?
And why doesn't some tags under "See also" of carrying implicate carrying? Are there any loopholes that it's not actually carrying or is it because they're just old tags?
(Didn't include shoulder carrying ones because there are some with chibi characters which is not carrying imo)
skylightcrystal said:
There are loads of images that are carrying something other than a person and someone carrying a person is definitely distinct enough to justify its own tag so hard -1 to that alias.
I more or less chose alias just because their wiki definitions would be nearly the same in my head, I would be okay with implication if carrying_person had a meaningful wiki though.
I changed it to implication as I created a wiki for carrying person and it got 2 downvotes already. Also, by this logic we should also have a carrying object tag to implicate carrying or something.
pronebone said:
I changed it to implication as I created a wiki for carrying person and it got 2 downvotes already. Also, by this logic we should also have a carrying object tag to implicate carrying or something.
If you mean you updated the BUR, both votes were cast before that, judging by the timestamps.
Yeah, it was downvoted in the last 12 hours and I don't really care either way so I updated the BUR just now :3
Ah, I realized now that it sounds like I'm complaining about having two downvotes right after posting or something, I meant it like "as it also got 2 downvotes in 12 hours"
Updated
The bulk update request #7387 (forum #197537) has been rejected by @pronebone.
BUR #7399 has been approved by @nonamethanks.
create implication carrying_person -> carrying
create implication carried_breast_rest -> carrying
create implication carrying_under_arm -> carrying
create implication fireman's_carry -> carrying
create implication baby_carry -> carrying
Updating the previous BUR since voters may not spot the edit change.
BUR #7410 has been approved by @nonamethanks.
create implication child_carry -> carrying
Added child_carry too.
The bulk update request #7386 (forum #197536) has been approved by @evazion.
The bulk update request #7399 (forum #197593) has been approved by @nonamethanks.
The bulk update request #7410 (forum #197657) has been approved by @nonamethanks.
Can't we have tags like princess carry and fireman's carry imply carrying person as well?
nonamethanks said:
What if someone is princess carrying a dog?
I'd argue you need legs that bend like a human / humanoid's for a princess carry to be a princess carry. With animals it'd simply be cradling as in post #4321278.
EDIT: Looking at princess_carry dog, I'd argue that in basically all cases where the dog is the part of the carrying, it's at least partially anthropomorphized and/or doing the carrying. For post #2520953, I'd say the girl is cradling the more realistic-looking dog, the anthropomorphized version of that dog is princess_carrying her. For post #2346918 the dogs are all anthropomorphized enough that they could be treated as "people" (despite being far on the furry side of the scale).
Updated
