Removed dress and wedding_dress as no one is wearing them (or am I not cleaver enough to see any?)

moonian said:
Removed dress and wedding_dress as no one is wearing them (or am I not cleaver enough to see any?)

You're right.

All I see are the veils and wedding dress-related undergarments, which aren't enough to warrant the use of dress and/or wedding_dress (imo).

Normally, I would disagree. It's an excellent example of a fetish, atypical wedding gown (edit: not gown, set of clothes). But implication of a dress tag and my other tag experience here say such thing don't matter.

yrumddldluxduzrf said:
But implication of a dress tag and my other tag experience here say such thing don't matter.

Yeah. Around here the idea is to not go overboard with how specific the tags are.

Reminds me of how I won't tag things like post #264547 with dakimakura. =)

Since tag description seemingly requires an image to have been officially printed on an actual dakimakura, and I'm not an expert on what was and what wasn't printed...

In my experience when I'm looking for this kind of images I'm looking for "wedding dress" ;)

I can see how wedding_dress could be appropriate.

Assuming most people look up wedding_dress to find pictures related to weddings (as there is no wedding tag by itself), this image would be probaby to their liking.

On the other hand, it's not a dress so there's that going against it.

Best solution would probably be to have a wedding tag but I suppose that's not feasible due to the huge amount of retroactive tagging that should be done and that it'll only very rarely occur that you'd need a wedding tag without wedding_dress too.

yrumddldluxduzrf said:
Reminds me of how I won't tag things like post #264547 with dakimakura. =)

Since tag description seemingly requires an image to have been officially printed on an actual dakimakura, and I'm not an expert on what was and what wasn't printed...

I think these kinds of post should be tagged with dakimakura, because they are in dakimakura format. And that's what I would want to see when I search for dakimakura. I don't think it matters if it's printed or it isn't.

Kawaiideath said:
Still, it's not a dress so there's that going against it.

They aren't in a room to change their clothes. They are outdoors with the church behind them, with the bouquet in hand and the flying flowers.
They get married so then that's their wedding dress. I think so.

(it is not so different from post 367142)

Onpu said:
They aren't in a room to change their clothes. They are outdoors with the church behind them, with the bouquet in hand and the flying flowers.
They get married so then that's their wedding dress. I think so.

(it is not so different from post 367142)

Reverted your edit there (that's a combination of bikini/bra-pantsu set + skirt). Unless either of the following happens, that clothing isn't "wedding dress":
- wedding_dress detached from dress and renamed to something else;
- the definition of dress (i.e. a one-piece clothing) IN THIS WORLD (i.e. NOT just in yande.re here) changes

P.S. Their decision to wear underwear only for the wedding ceremony does NOT automatically imply those underwear are wedding dress. For example, you're free to wear swimsuits for the same ceremony at a pool side, will you tag wedding_dress for that, too?

If we were to use the dictionary for each tag in board we would have thousand to say! ^_^ We are in an image board and people looking for this kind of images search for that tag. You take away the opportunity for people to find what they are looking for reasons that are not very understood or at least questionable.
I Close it here. Bye

Dress has several different definitions.
1. Clothing; apparel.
2. A style of clothing: folk dancers in peasant dress.
3. A one-piece outer garment consisting of a skirt and bodice.

A wedding gown fits all three.
This only fits the first two, but can technically still be defined as wedding dress.

If I was searching for "dress" I would not expect images like these, but when searching for wedding_dress I would likely appreciate their inclusion.

naarcissus said:

If I was searching for "dress" I would not expect images like these, but when searching for wedding_dress I would likely appreciate their inclusion.

The problem is, as mentioned previously, adding "wedding_dress" will also add "dress", and so you will get this if you search dress now.

Ah. Lovely automation. Making our lives easier! lol.

Why is it that a tagging system like this, that seeks to keep a relatively skeleton collection of tags, would have tags that are as specific as "wedding_dress" rather than the more inclusive "wedding". "wedding" would denote a wedding theme then you could refine it with the tag: "dress" to return with primarily wedding dresses. Technically it would include onlookers wearing dresses at a wedding event, but makes more efficient use of the limited number of tags to find the largest amount of content. How would one right now find an image in a wedding theme where the subjects are not necessarily wearing a dress.

The questions are rhetorical. Perhaps food for thought. My above post was more me being pedantic about moonian defining the real world word, "dress" so narrowly.

I hate general tags.

I'm not a fan of them either. While I have nothing against the idea of a bare bone tagging system, in practice I find that there exist too many, in my eyes at least, niche tags for it to really feel propery executed.

Some examples: sling_bikini (only found out about its existence today), smoking, sake, guitar, and neko (not to be confused with nekomimi).

Speaking of the latter; there is an inumimi general tag but no inu.

I'll leave it at that because I'm aware this discussion is probably better suited for the forum.