Suggestion for Bare Legs to imply Legs

BUR #57 has been rejected.

create implication bare_legs -> legs

Requesting legs implication for bare_legs

However, it appears to be the same on Danbooru. Are we just going off their tags?

"Im pretty sure we have discussed renaming the legs tag to leg_focus but it didnt go anywhere." - ion288 from Danbooru

That's most likely why it hasn't been implicated in Danbooru, since in order to tag legs, it has to be a prominent part of the picture, but you don't have to have a focus on legs to have bare legs

Imperishable_NEET said:

Are we just going off their tags?

A lot of it is the same yes, but in the end, we make our own decisions, such as a different decision on tagging solo on multiple_views.

But since the name is indeed legs and not mentioning anything about focus there, in my opinion it would feel intuitive to have bare legs implicate legs. If we need leg focus tag, it should be its own thing.

It's another instance of a poorly-named tag being taken literally like eyes was. Most characters have legs. If the tag were literally for any character with legs it would not be a very good tag.

Danbooru uses the legs tag, yes. Their wiki specifies that the legs need to be a main focus of the image and must be fully shown.

I know for a fact that not all bare legs posts on this site show the full length of the leg, so this implication would make the legs tag useless. I suspect that's probably why Danbooru doesn't have it implied like that either.

As an aside: I don't like the legs tag in general. The name is too ambiguous, and some uploaders would just add it to any image that shows even a sliver of the upper thighs, so if a leg-focus tag needs to exist then it should be named something like "leg_focus" and it should be clearly defined what does/don't apply.

The bulk update request #57 (forum #562) has been rejected by @Talulah.