Danbooru

Bare_Arms

Posted under General

there are at least 3 users using this tag, though there are very few posts atm.

i'll try to look at this case in a historical perspective.

the earliest documented post i found out is post #994803 on 2011-09-13

it's tagged bare_arms, bare_legs, bare_shoulders, barefoot, and nude

bare_shoulders wiki says "Do not use when nude applies." dated 2011-09-15

bare_legs wiki somewhat implies that a character still has clothes on.

barefoot's earlier wiki said "Should not be used in combination with the nude-tag." dated 2008-05-03

on 2009-01-06 the wiki said "it can and should still be applied to nude"

the original tagger (uploader) probably didn't read the bare_shoulders wiki as it came 2 days later. however, based on our definitions pre-bare_arms, the post can be tagged as nude and barefoot.

the original tagger didn't provide a wiki for bare_arms. he probably used this to show the character is somewhat completely nude and wears no clothes, even though it's redudant with nude tag already. but this is understandable.

after more than two months another uploader used bare_arms on post #1046564.

the post was not tagged sleeveless. but after examining the parent post #1046562, we could assume that the uploader wanted to convey the idea in the child post, that the character wears no sleeves thus bare_arms.

much later, Danielx21 populated the bare_arms and created the wiki which i believe is patterned after bare_legs.

the newly added posts all fall under sleeveless.

unless i'm missing something, i would interpret this case as simple gardening or aliasing bare_arms -> sleeveless. though there are very few posts, an alias might me necessary because there's a possibility that others might use this too in the future.

the original post #994803, ironically, should be cleaned. imho, nude and barefoot should be just fine.

Updated

bare arms -> sleeveless alias won't work. You can have a character wearing elbow gloves (past the elbow) with a sleeved garment. You can also conceivably have enough visible arm with a short-sleeved top to be taggable. I'm still not sure it's necessary though.

On a side note, I do not agree with that definition of bare shoulders. I've personally been using it as a qualitative tag for even fully nude posts, akin to legs. Shoulders aren't particularly notable unless they're bare (except perhaps in conjunction with skin tight bodysuits). It's also very possible to have nude posts where the shoulders are covered (by hair, for example).

Bloodletter said:
On a side note, I do not agree with that definition of bare shoulders. I've personally been using it as a qualitative tag for even fully nude posts, akin to legs. Shoulders aren't particularly notable unless they're bare (except perhaps in conjunction with skin tight bodysuits). It's also very possible to have nude posts where the shoulders are covered (by hair, for example).

post #1049459 illustrates Bloodletter's last point.

Bloodletter said:
bare arms -> sleeveless alias won't work.

most probably, if we are going to use and accept the current definition of bare_arms which is still very fresh. the alias is just my suggestion considering how they were used in the past for sleeveless before the wiki got created. 6/7 posts satisfy this. the wiki definition came 2 minutes later after the last post was tagged as bare_arms. all six are just plain sleeveless.

the original post's use of bare_arms was probably only to describe the lack of clothing in every part of the body since bare_shoulders was not defined yet or did not have any restriction at all. and noticed the number of bare* tags too.

in any case, you are quite correct being unsure if the alias is necessary, i assume? i'm not sure myself. different people might have different ideas regarding bare_arms even before reading the wiki. we can also just use simple gardening as i mentioned above as an alternative way. and before doing so, we are left with the question is the bare_arms tag absolutely necessary?

so far, all posts under bare_arms and those mentioned in this thread fall under any existing tags and i don't see a need for this new tag yet.

and regarding the bare shoulders definition, i think that's the bigger problem here. the definition is quite new, only this year. however, its use predates the wiki. years before?

Updated

Rampardos said:
The name is really unfitting for that purpose if that's what it's going to be restricted to, and that's a really specific scenario to have such a confusing tag for.

I'm not particularly in favor of calling the concept bare_arms. no_sleeves would be slightly better already. But at any rate I don't see any name here that wouldn't be confusing to some degree.

Rampardos said:
Also sleeveless -elbow_gloves hatsune_miku seems to work just fine.

Where did -detached_sleeves go?
Anyway, the sole fact hatsune_miku sleeveless returns only 5 pages when hatsune_miku returns 1238 should tell you something already.

To use a tag like this with a nude would require there to be an direct and explicit focus on that body part. Bare back occasionally works partly because one's back is usually not the focus of an image and so when it is, it's very salient. Additionally when it's the focus, it's usually placed front and center in the image which usually is not the case.

For bare arms to meet the same criteria, it would have to be an image that focuses on and emphasizes the arms in a way a typical image wouldn't (arms are usually visible, so this might be hard). If there was an image that met these criteria I could see using it on a nude, but an image like that would be very rare.

jxh2154 said:
This isn't a tag I'm going to fight against, but I'd really prefer it not be used on nudes.

Yeah, don't use "bare [x]" tags for nude pictures, that is silly. They are only bare in contrast to surrounding stuff being clothed.

The bare_arms tags itself doesn't seem that bad to me, I can think of images where it could potentially be good, and not overlap with sleeveless, like torn clothes or something.

1