Currently colored hakama skirts are being tagged both with *_skirt and *_hakama. Hakama skirt implies neither, however. Some examples: red_skirt hakama_skirt: 1252 posts red_hakama hakama_skirt: 1213 posts
How should this tag be handled? Should it imply hakama or skirt? Both? Neither? hakama skirt is also listed as a type of skirt in the skirt wiki.
My opinion would be to imply hakama_skirt to both skirt and hakama, since it's got traits of both, but I want to gauge other people's opinion before submitting a BUR.
Furthermore, the reason we don't imply hakama itself to skirt, as far as I understand, is because there's also the baggy type of hakama "pants", as mentioned in its wiki, but then again we also have hakama pants, so this situation is kind of confusing.
I always use colour_hakama when tagging hakama_skirts since I assumed it already implied hakama, I don't see any reason not to make the implication. I'm a bit unsure about doing the same with skirt though since I don't know if people want to have it more of an umbrella tag (using it for things like hakama_skirts and bikini_skirts) or just for the regular kind of skirts.
If skirts aren't skirts, then they shouldn't be called skirts. The end.
The issue I think is that we are using hakama_skirt for short hakama skirts, when we should instead have differentiated hakama from the start into its skirt variant (of any length) and pants variant (hindsight is always 20/20).
To truly clean up this mess the following imo is what is needed:
hakama_shorts should be dealiased from hakama_pants, because there can be short and long hakama pants: see post #2503379 vs post #4028540. Right now these are being tagged as hakama_pants shorts, which makes any forced separation and lack of implication between hakama pants and pants pointless.
Imo hakama skirts of any length should also be tagged with skirt - they're sanctified pleated skirts at the end of the day. It also allows us to use skirt_lift/pull, color tags, and all the other tags related to them, that otherwise we'd have to keep separated for semantic reasons.
As for hakama usually being long, note that we don't imply gown or wedding dress with long_dress either, so it would be handled in the same way as them.
I realize it would be a pretty big change as it would go against years of tagging, so I'd like @evazion's opinion on it.
One final note: we're the only site that uses "hakama skirt" to specifically refer to the short version, as can be seen from the Google Images results for hakama skirt and the fact that "hakama skirt" shows no results on google that specifically refer to a short variant.
Alright, I volunteer to clean up this mess and sort through all the posts after these BURs. I know I'll regret it halfway through but nobody else will do it otherwise.
Unfortunately this will take three BURs due to how the site is coded, but I think if it's not fixed now it'll only get worse as more posts are added.
I went with "hakama short skirt" over "hakama miniskirt" because I can predict people will start arguing about the threshold for the tag. Also "short hakama skirt" is a pain to have because of the autocomplete.
This is the "safe" route because people unaware of the change will keep using hakama instead of hakama skirt at first, which while not ideal is fine for us because they're all hakama anyway.
The issue seems to be some kind of mental resistance towards labeling male or unisex garments with skirt, even when they have a similar shape. Like for kilt and sarong.
The issue seems to be some kind of mental resistance towards labeling male or unisex garments with skirt, even when they have a similar shape. Like for kilt and sarong.
Most of those look like hakama pants to me. The ones that aren't look like undefined hakama without a skirt or pants outline, or where it's impossible to tell because you can only see the upper side - that's one of the main reasons why we need this change. For the ones like post #4402795... Well, that's a skirt. There's no other way to tag that.
Most of those look like hakama pants to me. The ones that aren't look like undefined hakama without a skirt or pants outline, or where it's impossible to tell because you can only see the upper side - that's one of the main reasons why we need this change. For the ones like post #4402795... Well, that's a skirt. There's no other way to tag that.
A big chunk (under the above and hakama -1girl -*girls) look like the skirt variant (i.e. andon-bakama, "lantern hakama") to me. Anything without a clear dividing line or interrupted hem (or flared pants legs) defaults to a skirt-like garment. The pants one (i.e. umanori-bakama, "horse-riding hakama") are usually work clothes or riding breeches.
(The andon and umanori hakamas are also sometimes called "skirt-type" and "pants-type", respectively, using katakana English for both.)
The default formal traditional menswear in Japan is the montsuki-haori-hakama (like these). Currently, the hakama here can often be a "lantern skirt" hakama, woven using striped sendaihira silk fabric. This makes this (the formal male "lantern" variant, at least) the Japanese equivalent of a kilt.
Real-life examples of male skirt-type "lantern" hakama can be found using a "袴 行灯 メンズ " (hakama andon men's) search. Google images has quite a few.
Samue.co also has a page listing most of the different types of hakama.
What's your argument? That the tag for the hakama skirt should not be called "hakama skirt" nor imply skirt?
My point is that menswear are usually not tagged skirt even if they are skirt-like. This includes kilt and (some varieties of) sarong, as well as (currently) male "skirt-type" hakama.
For the formal male "skirt-type" hakama (the Japanese equivalent of the bottom of half of a tuxedo), consider the following:
post #2384737 is not clear, and for post #1190805 and the rest I'd be on the fence between not clear and just hakama skirt, but I'd tag them as just hakama when not sure rather than any of the specific ones.
If you don't like the term "hakama skirt" then what do you suggest?
If you don't like the term "hakama skirt" then what do you suggest?
I honestly don't mind (andon-bakama is the proper term but it's not intuitive for English users). I suppose I don't really mind menswear being tagged skirt either. I just mentioned it because I thought some people might find it to be an issue (since kilt and sarong don't imply skirt either despite also being skirt-like garments). If we're okay with examples like post #4260795 being tagged hakama skirt and skirt, then sure, go right ahead with all three BURs.
I'm not sure how much of the lack of tagging is supposed to be lack of knowledge by the artist or lack of knowledge by the tagger or how helpful this could be to the discussion, but Fujiwara no Mokou is supposed to be wearing hakama pants.
I'm not sure how much of the lack of tagging is supposed to be lack of knowledge by the artist or lack of knowledge by the tagger or how helpful this could be to the discussion, but Fujiwara no Mokou is supposed to be wearing hakama pants.
They look like sashinuki (hakama pants worn by Heian-era male court nobles), or depending-on-fanartist sometimes mompe (female work trousers), but I'm not sure whether they still count as hakama once you add the suspenders on.
They look like sashinuki (hakama pants worn by Heian-era male court nobles), or depending-on-fanartist sometimes mompe (female work trousers), but I'm not sure whether they still count as hakama once you add the suspenders on.
According to the wiki
She wears a dress shirt with suspenders and karusan (a type of hakama typically worn by men) tied at the waist, rather than above the waist as is standard for women's hakama.
Yeah, the issue is again that hakama is just generic, it says nothing about it being a skirt. I'll also clean up mokou's posts once all of this goes through.
In modern times karusan and mompe are pretty much the same thing. Just different names used in different regions, with both names being used (among others) for the women's garment (which are also usually tied at the waist, incidentally). Though the similar-looking men's version doesn't usually get called mompe.
The original 16th/17th century karusan (which are usually menwear) are different (these are made to imitate European "balloon leg" trunk hoses). But what Mokou wears is never depicted as the 16th/17th century garment.
Canonically, Mokou's pants are likely intended to resemble sashinuki, not karusan (any of its variants) or mompe. The sashinuki is also an Heian-era garb, dating to the same period of Tale of the Bamboo Cutter. Zun's artstyle in IN makes it somewhat ambiguous, but her ULiL depiction makes it clear that they are modified sashinuki(-ish) instead of being mompe/karusan.
Fanart does occasionally depict Mokou's pants as mompe though instead of the canonical sashinuki. Or just straight-up Western style suspender pants with actual pockets.
--
Anyway... crux of the issue is, do we still consider modified hakama-like garments with suspenders and 'pockets' to still be hakama? If yes then tag Mokou's pants as hakama pants (if the hakama-style blousing can be seen). Otherwise just pants (and suspenders for both cases). Doesn't matter what the actual name of the garments are called, or whether they are technically hakama or not (a lot of garments will count otherwise because "hakama" was a catch-all term for virtually all 'traditional' Japanese garments worn at the waist and below, including armored shorts).
Personally I think what Mokou wears in canon kinda looks like some other examples currently tagged hakama pants, so I think they can be tagged as such. Only main hiccup are the suspenders. The 'pockets' may just be wakiaki plackets/side openings (and are in fact depicted as such in her ULiL portrait art). But because these pants have been modified extensively one usually needs to see the distinctive sashinuki-style blousing near the hem to identify them as hakama_pants. Otherwise they may look like Western pants. And fanart sometimes draw them as Western pants anyway (with Mokou reaching into actual pockets for a cig or lighter), so one shouldn't just canon-tag hakama_pants.
Yeah, my bad. I just wanted to drop that in case it could be used as reference.
Anyway... crux of the issue is, do we still consider modified hakama-like garments with suspenders and 'pockets' to still be hakama?
I think if they don't fit the wakiaki description, or look a mix between hakama and western pants, then they could be tagged as non-traditional/modified_japanese_clothes, a tag i also suggested in an earlier discussion.
