post #437408
There was a skirt_hold but that seemed to be used more for skirt_lift.
Updated by jxh2154
Posted under General
post #437408
There was a skirt_hold but that seemed to be used more for skirt_lift.
Updated by jxh2154
There has been a dress_hold tag as well since post #393605.
It definitely is ambiguous with dress_lift and the like but it's consistent with mouth_hold.
Guess I personaly like X_carry better though.
A single tag for both skirts/dresses might be better as well but I can't think of anything good.
Cyberia-Mix said:
There has been a dress_hold tag as well since post #393605. It definitely is ambiguous with dress_lift...
I think the posts currently under dress_hold ought to be mass edited to dress_carry to be consistent with
skirt_carry.
skirt_hold was synonymous with skirt_lift; unicogirl has just mass edit merged them. We should use similar definitions for dress_hold and dress_lift for consistency. Perhaps aliases are in order here (after dress_hold gets moved accordingly).
Cyberia-Mix said:
dress_hold [is] consistent with mouth_hold.
Guess I personaly like X_carry better though.
I would distinguish X_carry from mouth_hold in that the character is not in direct physical contact with the objects being borne.
Cyberia-Mix said:
A single tag for both skirts/dresses might be better as well but I can't think of anything good.
Merging dress_lift and skirt_lift together seemed to gain some traction in forum #14505 but was not followed up and carried out. But the same reasoning could be applied to merge X_carry here.
unicogirl said:
When it comes to a dress being a one-piece garment the bottom half that flares out is called the skirt, when it is detached or treated as a seperate piece, it is just a skirt.
Now that's pretty convenient, thanks.
Voting in favor of skirt_carry for both then.
I also like the idea of skirt_carry for both standalone skirts and dress skirts. Done.
As for skirt/dress hold, I think the images still in dress_hold fit the current definition (which is something that probably does warrant a tag), though I'll alias it to skirt_hold.
Also aliasing dress_lift -> skirt_lift.
Edit: Wait no I'm not, almost 2000 posts = it's guaranteed to break with the alias bugs we have. Hopefully I'll remember or someone will remind me when if/whenever that ever gets fixed.
Does this mean we are now using skirt_hold for skirt lifting in non revealing purposes (as in post #692258 or post #284974)?
Cyberia-Mix said:
Does this mean we are now using skirt_hold for skirt lifting in non revealing purposes (as in post #692258 or post #284974)?
My understanding is that those would be skirt_carry, but maybe I got it backwards? Thinking about it, _carry for carrying objects in a skirt makes sense... but so does describing it as "_hold for holding objects in a skirt".
So, hold or carry for objects in a skirt?
Hold or carry for someone grasping their own skirt for other purposes?
unicogirl said: I was going create a tag called skirt_basket, but wanted to see if there was a tag for it first, which explains the topic.
This is probably better than trying to futz around with carry vs hold.
I'll alias carry over to skirt_basket.
jxh2154 said:
Also aliasing dress_lift -> skirt_lift.
Edit: Wait no I'm not, almost 2000 posts = it's guaranteed to break with the alias bugs we have.
Creating and deleting that alias seems to have updated an existing implication:
"dress_lift -> dress" became "skirt_lift -> dress"
...which is wrong.
bah, I should have paid attention to this thread. I'm still 100% against having aliased dress_lift to skirt_lift, given that you can do things with a dress_lift that are not possible with a skirt_lift.
It'd have been much more reasonable to have gone an implication route with them.
hm not sure what the error is. Since these seem to be before my time.
Thus far, I understand that dress/skirt_carry = skirt_basket is complete and not an issue anymore?
So it is the skirt_lift and dress_lift that are? Which I thought was seperate. An old implication was brought up?
Was there a change that when a tag with implications is aliased that the implications will also get moved over? If so, that is likely what happened. Someone aliased dress_lift to skirt_lift which migrated dress_lift's implication to dress over to skirt_lift. The dress_lift -> dress implication is gone and there is now a skirt_lift -> dress implication on the implication list.
If we're going to try and go through with tying the dress_lift and skirt_lift tags together, I believe the ideal setup would be through an implication. Most images under dress_lift can be edited over to skirt_lift, but dress_lift itself should at least be retained for use when a dress is lifted up to the point of exposing their chest (like post #625723 or post #149804).
parasol said: Creating and deleting that alias seems to have updated an existing implication:
"dress_lift -> dress" became "skirt_lift -> dress"
...which is wrong.
I never actually put dress_lift -> skirt_lift through because I knew it would break. I submitted it, but deleted without approving. It's a two step process. Or is supposed to be.
I have no idea why the system would change other aliases/implications based on something I never actually approved. Sigh.
I deleted skirt_lift -> dress and resubmitted skirt_lift -> skirt and dress_lift -> dress implications. Unfortunately I bet they'll break.
Aliases and implications realllllllllly need to get fixed. I should just deny any modestly large change until they are because there's a real error cascade that happens when one piece of intricately linked tag relationships breaks.