alias *_removed -> unworn_*

BUR #6612 has been rejected.

Apparently these tags are supposed to be used any time an article is present in an image that is not worth. *_removed implies otherwise, so this is a more appropriate name. See forum #182483 for context.

Omitted due to concerns over naming:

alias earphones_removed -> unworn_earphones
alias single_earphone_removed -> single_unworn_earphone
alias tail_removed -> ???
alias headphones_removed -> unworn_headphones

"Unworn" is not a commonly used term IRL, and I think it sounds very awkward. It also primarily means "never worn": just google "unworn definition".
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unworn
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/unworn

I'm all for a change away from *_removed, but I would prefer the change to be to removed_* or maybe some other option. *_discarded?

CormacM said:

"Unworn" is not a commonly used term IRL, and I think it sounds very awkward. It also primarily means "never worn": just google "unworn definition".

I'm all for a change away from *_removed, but I would prefer the change to be to removed_* or maybe some other option. *_discarded?

Discarded is in no way related to the usage of these terms.

Talulah said:

Discarded is in no way related to the usage of these terms.

It's about as related as "unworn"

CormacM said:

It's about as related as "unworn"

Unworn is exactly the correct term; it's an article which is not worn. Discarded implies something completely different.

Talulah said:

Unworn is exactly the correct term; it's an article which is not worn. Discarded implies something completely different.

Did you read the dictionary entries I linked? Unworn means "never worn", which is not what these tags are for. It sounds perfectly natural to say "she discarded her clothes before getting into the shower". It is incredibly unnatural to say of clothes that were just taken off by someone undressing that they are "unworn."

In any event, I think removed_* is preferable to both.

"discarded" is not good either because clothes in a clothing shop would qualify for this tag too.

CormacM said:

Did you read the dictionary entries I linked? Unworn means "never worn", which is not what these tags are for. It sounds perfectly natural to say "she discarded her clothes before getting into the shower". It is incredibly unnatural to say of clothes that were just taken off by someone undressing that they are "unworn."

In any event, I think removed_* is preferable to both.

No I didn't because I don't care. You are again proving why these tag names are bad. They are not to be used solely when a person has removed their clothing, but when any aforemention article is not actively being worn. "Discarded" is not an accurate term to use. "Removed" is not an accurate term to use. They both leave the same impression which goes against how the tags are intended to be used. If you have a suggestion for an actual term that would accurately describe this scenario, I'd be happy to hear it. Discarded and removed are not those terms.

So you make a suggestion because you think the current term is inappropriate... to change it to something else that is inappropriate. And then say you don't care when this is pointed out to you?

skylightcrystal said:

So you make a suggestion because you think the current term is inappropriate... to change it to something else that is inappropriate. And then say you don't care when this is pointed out to you?

I'm saying I don't care what the dictionary says. Unworn is a completely appropriate term consistent of the prefix un- and the past participle form of wear. The dictionary saying it is primarily used in one way doesn't suddenly make that not the case. Unconventional? Maybe so, but that doesn't mean it's "inappropriate". Again, if you think there is a better term, feel free to suggest it.

The proper adjectives are "empty..." or sometimes "currently unworn...", though these two adjectives have problems for tagging purposes. "Empty..." in particular would be wrong for stuff like backpacks that can hold other things (it is the preferred adjective for actual garments like shoes though).

I'm okay with removed_*. I was initially okay with unworn_* (just assume the tagger/searcher interpret it as short for "currently unworn"), but after reading the objections by others here I've changed my vote to a "meh".

Let's cool it before this discussion gets too heated.

A tag like shoes removed just means there's a pair of shoes in the image that's not currently being worn. It doesn't necessarily mean the character is shoeless, or that they just removed their own shoes. Maybe they're at a shoe store. Maybe there's just someone else's shoes in the background. Shoes removed sounds like it's saying the character is shoeless, which makes it easily confused with no shoes or barefoot. Removed shoes could also be confused with those tags, although perhaps less so. So I would say unworn shoes is the least prone to confusion idea here. Interpreting "unworn shoes" as "shoes that have never ever been worn" seems like a stretch to me in the context of Danbooru.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not fond of removed either. Just I don't see how changing from one word that has a definite meaning that isn't what we mean by the tag, to another word that has a definite meaning that isn't what we mean by the tag is any sort of improvement.

And pointing to the etymological origins of the word really doesn't change that either.

This proposal might make the difference between the following quite a bit clearer:

"piece of clothing present, but not on body" → unworn_*

and

"the absence of a piece of clothing known to be previously worn, or that is almost always worn by a character (not on their body, and not in the image)" → no_*

In English "removed" is ambiguous between the two meanings and this might help prevent confusion and related mis-tagging.

Exceptions regarding secondary ways of wearing a removed item:

I agree with the current exceptions. For instance headphones that have been "removed" might still be "worn" around the neck (headphones_around_neck). The words "removed" and "unworn" do have slightly different meanings in English with respect to clothing.

I'd argue that this is also the case for things in similar cases where they are "removed" but not "worn":

• *_on_head / *_on_headwear
• *_around_neck
• *_around_waist

Even if panties are "removed", if they're "on your head" you're still "wearing" them. That's a common enough trope. Many characters with goggles in their costume are "wearing" them on their head far far more frequently than they are "wearing" them properly on their face (if they ever do). Similarly, people commonly "remove" their jacket, and then "wear" it around their waist.

In cases like these, unworn_panties, unworn_goggles, or unworn_jacket simply seems false, and there'd be no good way to tag the fact that they've been removed anymore without accounting for it in an exception. Since the "removal" would be implied by the nature of the secondary way of wearing that item, and perhaps considered redundant, we could set policy and say that we no longer use *_removed in such cases, but that'd involve a fair bit of tag gardening to fix. It'd also prevent someone from searching cases where a jacket is present but not worn in the typical manner, whether it be on their waist or the floor (which jacket_removed would still do).

On the other hand, while skirt on head is a novel, distinct, and memorable enough thing that it probably warrants a tag (even if tiny) for recall and discrimination. Also, it is true that you'd be said to "wear your skirt on your head" in the uncommon case that that ever happens. Along those lines, the typical case here (5.4k instances vs 15) would be a skirt on the floor or likewise, where this proposal does make sense. With that in mind, we might need to be discerning with exceptions, or otherwise consider the fact that the fuzziness creates fair arguments against the proposal. Because "removed" is more generic, it's more flexible in working with odd-ball cases.

Here's a list of the relevant tags, that should maybe also be removed from the proposal. Some of these aren't affected by the current proposal, but fit the pattern and could be. Some of these are also very small and should arguably be nuked, moved, aliased or otherwise not applicable for aliases or implications anyway.

Facewear / Headwear / Earwear:

Neckwear:

Upperwear:

Legwear / Bottomwear

Other:

Other exceptions:

Also what about *_over_shoulder? Personally, while I think it's right to say you are "wearing" a jacket around your waist, and even to "wear" a jacket around your neck. If it's over your shoulder though, you're no longer "wearing" it (at least in my mind). It's a similar case to consider though. I'd argue the same for following where they might (but probably don't) count as "wearing" and as such, wouldn't need to be included as exceptions here:

• *_around_*ankle*
• *_around_*arm*
• *_around_*leg*
• *_over_eye*
• *_over_shoulder

Also in the current proposal we have jacket_partially_removed. I'd strongly argue that while it's definitely possible to have a piece of clothing partly removed, you can't really "partly wear" anything. An item is either worn or not. I'd definitely remove it from the proposal or use it as a point against us enacting it. For completeness, there is also a tiny coat partially removed tag.

Would using *_not_worn look to clunky or weird as a solution to base the problem? Shoes not worn seems easy to understand to me.

ion288 said:

Would using *_not_worn look to clunky or weird as a solution to base the problem? Shoes not worn seems easy to understand to me.

I think if you went that route you'd probably need the "not_worn" in brackets, so people don't think it means that someone isn't wearing shoes

The bulk update request #6612 (forum #193565) has been rejected by @Talulah.