public -> public_indecency / imply public tags -> public_indecency

BUR #7840 has been rejected.

create implication public_nudity -> public

I think this should be fairly obvious.

Public really needs a better name, it gets misused for just regular images with a public setting.

Please read the wiki before submitting "obvious" implications. Public is for sexual activity in a public location. You could make a case for exhibitionism or flashing being a sexual act, as they're done for the gratification of the perpetrator, but there's nothing inherently sexual about the nudity in images like post #1208294 or post #1934881 or post #3266345 or post #4279402.

Unbreakable said:

Public really needs a better name, it gets misused for just regular images with a public setting.

It absolutely needs a better name. It's one of the most misleadingly-named tags this site has ever had.

I think the last time the topic was brought up, it was suggested to change public -> public_indecency. Frankly, I can't think of any better names.

But what about public_sex?

Danbooru has a very specific definition of sex, and public covers all kind of sexual activitiy. We don't want another "obvious" implication down the road.

Hillside_Moose said:

I think the last time the topic was brought up, it was suggested to change public -> public_indecency. Frankly, I can't think of any better names.

That's exactly the name I was thinking of as well, so I agree with the suggestion.

iridescent_slime said:

Please read the wiki before submitting "obvious" implications. Public is for sexual activity in a public location. You could make a case for exhibitionism or flashing being a sexual act, as they're done for the gratification of the perpetrator, but there's nothing inherently sexual about the nudity in images like post #1208294 or post #1934881 or post #3266345 or post #4279402.

I think the public tag should become an umbrella tag.
It doesn't make sense to me to keep public nudity, public and exhibitionism completely separate at least.
The latter tag definitely needs a lot of gardening though, some of them are just flashing (not necessarily in a public setting), while others are solo pics on a blank background.

Hillside_Moose said:

public covers all kind of sexual activity.

public_sexual_activity is an option too. A bit long though

Of the options here public_indecency sounds best in my mind. It covers exhibitionism and outright sexual activity and doesn't sound clunky.

BUR #7869 has been approved by @Hillside_Moose.

create alias public -> public_indecency

As discussed above

BUR #7870 has been approved by @evazion.

create implication public_nudity -> public_indecency
create implication public_masturbation -> public_indecency
create implication exhibitionism -> public_indecency

The tags above need some gardening before the bur goes through.

The bulk update request #7840 (forum #199670) has been rejected by @Username_Hidden.

public_indecency sounds very obscure to non-natives while public_sexual_activity or public_sexual_act are crystal clear. If we look in the conversation in this thread nobody uses "indecency" word.
All programmers know that name of a variable is a big deal. Name of a tag even more important so why don't make it clear and understandable for everyone.

pantsukiller said:

public_indecency sounds very obscure to non-natives while public_sexual_activity or public_sexual_act are crystal clear.

"Indecency" is the legal term used in most of the United States, Great Britain and the Commonwealth, and covers cases such as nudity or exposure in public. By contrast, your suggestion of public_sexual_act would exclude public_nudity, as nudity isn't inherently sexual. Consider this a learning opportunity.

BUR #7881 has been rejected.

create alias chikan -> public_molestation
create implication public_molestation -> public_indecency

tie-in with topic #18947

ljhkhjkghjybtvhyt said:

BUR #7881 has been rejected.

create alias chikan -> public_molestation
create implication public_molestation -> public_indecency

tie-in with topic #18947

This does not account for chijo. In theory chikan is the male tag.

While it may count as molestation, it's a huge stretch to call something like post #4638229 public indecency.

The bulk update request #7869 (forum #199811) has been approved by @Hillside_Moose.

The bulk update request #7881 (forum #199860) has been rejected by @Hillside_Moose.

I've approved the public -> public_indecency BUR for now, but the public_nudity -> public_indecency implication gives me pause. Does secluded outdoor nudity such as post #4696180 or post #4655941 count as public indecency? There's a provision in the wiki that "beaches and forests can be private. Use only if it is obviously a public location." I'm thinking to omit it from the BUR and leave it to manual tagging.

Public vibrator are not necessarily public indecency, especially if shown through x-ray or upskirt.

Hillside_Moose said:

I've approved the public -> public_indecency BUR for now, but the public_nudity -> public_indecency implication gives me pause. Does secluded outdoor nudity such as post #4696180 or post #4655941 count as public indecency? There's a provision in the wiki that "beaches and forests can be private. Use only if it is obviously a public location." I'm thinking to omit it from the BUR and leave it to manual tagging.

Those posts should not be tagged with public nudity but that is a tag that is a victim to people not reading wikis. People see outdoors and tag public nudity. Exhibitionism can also be done in a private setting, such as a club.

-1 to public_vibrator and exhibitionism. +1 to the rest.