Topic: Tag implication: crotch_breasts -> breasts

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

waydence said:
He then protested me (indirectly) calling them breasts in topic #34473 for some reason.

Check Faucet's link--There was zero discussion of any sort in the thread, let alone discussion on if crotch breasts should be tagged as breasts or kept separate so that people can find both kinds on the same character.

Neutral in favor of that discussion.

furrin_gok said:
Check Faucet's link--There was zero discussion of any sort in the thread, let alone discussion on if crotch breasts should be tagged as breasts or kept separate so that people can find both kinds on the same character.

I think I finally get it, you want to keep them separate so that people can find only regular breasts, only crotch breasts, or both together? If so, that's a good point, though someone clueless (like me) can just tag them with breasts anyway.

I think correctly tagging featureless chest would be more helpful here.

waydence said:
I think I finally get it, you want to keep them separate so that people can find only regular breasts, only crotch breasts, or both together? If so, that's a good point, though someone clueless (like me) can just tag them with breasts anyway.

I think correctly tagging featureless chest would be more helpful here.

Honestly, I'm undecided. If I was dead set on running it that way, I'd have given a -1 instead, but what I want here is discussion to help me and others decide.

wandering_spaniel said:
+1 because unusual_breast_placement implies breasts, I don't see why one specific placement of breasts shouldn't but everything else can

Wouldn't it then make sense to have this imply unusual_breast_placement instead of breasts?

I don't think either are good, though. It would cause issues with something like busty_feral, which is a feral with breasts. If crotch breasts are simply considered unusually placed breasts, then stuff like
post #3873934 post #5474392
would be considered busty ferals, which isn't the kind of thing people expected for the tag.

watsit said:
Wouldn't it then make sense to have this imply unusual_breast_placement instead of breasts?

I don't think either are good, though. It would cause issues with something like busty_feral, which is a feral with breasts. If crotch breasts are simply considered unusually placed breasts, then stuff like
post #3873934 post #5474392
would be considered busty ferals, which isn't the kind of thing people expected for the tag.

Shoot, that's true, never mind

snpthecat said:
The bulk update request #10971 is pending approval.

create implication crotch_breasts (2483) -> unusual_breast_placement (19)

Reason: The alternate option

When comparing to what unusual_genitalia_placement is used on, crotch breasts don't really cut it as being unusual in my opinion given that there are animal species that do have some form of mammaries in the crotch area irl(often certainly having a similarly rounded inflated breast-like shape), breasts on the head, paws or penises would be what qualify as unusual for example, not the crotch.

Updated