imply bike_shorts_under_skirt -> bike_shorts

Posted under Tags

BUR #10792 has been rejected.

create implication bike_shorts_under_skirt -> bike_shorts

Any image depicting bike shorts under a skirt must also be depicting bike shorts in general.

118 pages of images have both tags: https://danbooru.donmai.us/posts?tags=bike_shorts_under_skirt+bike_shorts+&z=5

6 pages of images violate this implication by not having the bike_shorts tag: https://danbooru.donmai.us/posts?tags=bike_shorts_under_skirt+-bike_shorts+&z=5. I looked at a sample of those images and all the ones I looked at did indeed deserve the bike_shorts tag.

KagayakuShiningGate said:

Bike_shorts + skirt can still return situations where two different characters are wearing the garments.

As Talulah said, this issue is almost always present when searching more than one tag without adding solo to the search. It's a critique of the way we currently tag posts, not of any particular tag/combination of tags.

bike_shorts skirt -bike_shorts_under_skirt has 9.5k results, four times the amount of posts under the combo tag, and the vast majority of the posts are in fact bike shorts under skirts, due to the popularity of this concept, so I don't think we need this combo tag either.
It's one of those cases where having a combo tag is actually detrimental for us because it's a novice trap: people think it's the right way to see this kind of posts, but it actually only returns a percentage of them.

There's also shorts under skirt btw, which of course still only has half as many results as bike_shorts skirt -bike_shorts_under_skirt -shorts_under_skirt. It also implies shorts which goes against arguments raised in the past that bike shorts are not shorts because users are just adding shorts under skirt to pics of bike shorts under skirts.