Should it apply in this case (NSFW/Guro: post #2929789) and other such instances where there's a shirt with no_pants?
Posted under Tags
Should it apply in this case (NSFW/Guro: post #2929789) and other such instances where there's a shirt with no_pants?
chinatsu said:
Should it apply in this case (NSFW/Guro: post #2929789) and other such instances where there's a shirt with no_pants?
I guess every item that can look like a dress/skirt should fit here.
that still does exclude shorts, but it does include short kimonos and skimpy outfits like these. A dress shirt would also fit if it's long enough.
BrokenEagle98 said:
it's good to have solid definite boundaries
You ask, you shall receive: a thighhighs(over kneehighs)/bare thighs (part of legs between knees and buttocks)/outer (not underwear) clothes combination. No visible panties, underwear or parts of body usually kept under clothes (ass, hips, pussy etc).
chinatsu said:
Should it apply in this case (NSFW/Guro: post #2929789) and other such instances where there's a shirt with no_pants?
But it looks to me this no_pants tag applies to the girl on the left anyway, the one from right has legit ZR (her uniform is doing fine job covering everything that should be covered).
Bump, because description after all these years STILL has not been cleared in wiki, and now I'm being playing tag ping pong on post #4335972 which is a classic example of zettai_ryouiki tag usage.
richie said:
Bump, because description after all these years STILL has not been cleared in wiki, and now I'm being playing tag ping pong on post #4335972 which is a classic example of zettai_ryouiki tag usage.
Yeah, eh...don't vandalize tags.
It came up several times to create a tag, that is like zettai ryouiki but for shorts+thighhigs. I think it's worth thinking about such a new tag.
Guaro1238 said:
It came up several times to create a tag, that is like zettai ryouiki but for shorts+thighhigs. I think it's worth thinking about such a new tag.
If such a tag is created, I hope we have a rule of thumb for the allowable size of the gap. post #2551414 vs post #4141274 vs post #4339171 vs post #2237902 vs post #4206873 vs post #4213964.
Provence said:
Yeah, eh...don't vandalize tags.
Sorry but it's not me who had vandalized this tag from the begining.
NWF_Renim said:
If such a tag is created, I hope we have a rule of thumb for the allowable size of the gap.
Why and what for? There is no such thing as allowable size. A REALLY long time ago we've had some kind of different ZR classes, but seriously noone cares now. Today ZR is an image of
1. thighhighs which get over knees (over-kneehighs)
2. bare thighs (part of legs between knees and buttocks)
3. outer (not underwear) clothes. These are most often some kind of skirt, but not only limited to them.
4. what disqualifies from this tag are the "things shouldn't usually be visible while normal (decent) situation". These are visible panties (pantyshots), underwear or (erogenous) parts of body usually kept under clothes (ass, hips, pussy etc).
Therefore your "post #2551414 vs post #4141274 vs post #4339171 vs post #2237902 vs post #4206873 vs post #4213964" comparision is pointless.
post #4141274 post #4339171 post #2237902 post #4206873 certainly qualify for ZR tag
post #2551414 is out but not because of "size of gap" but because of ass cheeks blatantly visible out of the shorts
post #4213964 is even more interesting and illustrates another pecularity of ZR tag - it's situationality. The right pose is definitely a ZR one. The left - not so much (because of the very same reason as post #2551414). Of course as both poses are on one picture then the ZR tag should be used in the end.
Sorry for the delay with response, but I didn't have much time lately. I should be more accessible now.
If there is no limit on the gap, then the tag is nothing more than a shorts thighhighs search, and all the clauses add is that it's for rating:s images. If that's all the tag is, then I really don't see a reason for it to exist.
richie said:
Sorry but it's not me who had vandalized this tag from the begining.
If you're actively and intentionally adding/removing a tag contrary to how its wiki says it's supposed to be used, and other people tell you to stop doing that, then yes, you are vandalizing. It doesn't matter if you disagree with how everyone else has agreed it should be used, until the group comes to a majority ruling, it will continue to be used the way it was previously being used.
The wiki was never changed after all these years because it was never agreed that it should be changed, and how it should be changed. You don't get to decide by yourself how the tag should be used.
There is no such thing as allowable size.
There is if we decide there is. There isn't if we decide there isn't.
NWF_Renim said:
If there is no limit on the gap, then the tag is nothing more than a shorts thighhighs search, and all the clauses add is that it's for rating:s images. If that's all the tag is, then I really don't see a reason for it to exist.
It's not as this non-ero limit applies to lower parts of the body (hidden under skirt or shorts) and not to higher ones (examples post #4353887 post #4342939 post #4318356).
blindVigil said:
The wiki was never changed after all these years
Really? And what about this
https://danbooru.donmai.us/wiki_page_versions/diff?otherpage=181524&thispage=177228&commit=Diff
It has been changed without open discussion and as a fait accompli. And then of course copy pasted later.
The user who's done it is GONE, but now when I'm trying to explain how this tag works here and after all these years it's me who I'm the bad guy here? Seriously?
richie said:
Really? And what about this
https://danbooru.donmai.us/wiki_page_versions/diff?otherpage=181524&thispage=177228&commit=DiffIt has been changed without open discussion and as a fait accompli. And then of course copy pasted later.
The user who's done it is GONE, but now when I'm trying to explain how this tag works here and after all these years it's me who I'm the bad guy here? Seriously?
Are you just intentionally being difficult? That change was made before you made this thread 3 or 4 years ago. I was referring to you reviving this dead thread 9 days ago to complain that no one ever made the changes to the wiki you arrogantly demanded. No one removed the shorts clause because no one agreed with you that it didn't belong. Some people talked about it, but no one decided anything.
You're not doing a very good job convincing anyone to change it. The tag will continue to be used the way its wiki says it's supposed to be used. Doing otherwise without reaching an agreement to use it differently would just create a mess. And if you're the one making that mess because you're getting into tag wars with people, after being told to stop, you're going to get yourself banned.
blindVigil said:
That change was made before you made this thread 3 or 4 years ago.
... yeah, and it has been made without reaching an agreement to use it that way. Hm, that sounds familiar...
I was referring to you reviving this dead thread 9 days ago to complain that no one ever made the changes to the wiki you arrogantly demanded
My "arrogance" is a derivative of how arrogant the earlier changes have been introduced, nothing more nothing less.
The tag will continue to be used the way its wiki says it's supposed to be used. Doing otherwise without reaching an agreement to use it differently would just create a mess.
You mean, the mess we have now? I completely agree. How about we finally clean this mess by removing the hasty and not agreed upon change that began the mess 4 years ago?
And if you're the one making that mess because you're getting into tag wars with people, after being told to stop, you're going to get yourself banned.
Thank you for your valuable input. It's always nice to participate in civilized discussion where both sides has something interested to say, in contrary to cases where you're the one side presents arguments while the other only threat you or ignore completely for years