The tag implication #32598 femboy_hooters -> hooters has been rejected.

Reason: Generally speaking, the only difference between the two is the fact that it's a bunch of guys wearing the uniform instead of girls. So it would stand to reason that until real Hooters tries that concept, these tags should be implicated.

EDIT: The tag implication femboy_hooters -> hooters (forum #293413) has been rejected by @Millcore.

foolysh said:
until real Hooters tries that concept

I like your confidence

No.

I'm somewhat conflicted with this. On one hand, femboy_hooters seems to be a meme/parody of the regular hooters, with some of it's own distinguishing features (namely, the addition of 'femboy' to the franchise's logo) to make it different from hooters.

On the other hand, the 'femboy' aspect is a rather small distinguishing feature overall, and without that it's largely the same as a regular hooters (or at least, the same as other posts here tagged with hooters). There are some cases where the 'femboy' aspect in the featured characters are completely absent (such as posts only featuring females or masculine males), and it's even less distinct from hooters for femboy_hooters posts that are completely devoid of the femboy_hooters logo.

Now that I've actually looked at the tags, I don't see why this is getting downvoted.
All of the meme posts have Hooters logo/uniform, so what's wrong with the implication? Like D.D.M. pointed out, some of them should be tagged as just Hooters, but not implicating these would not fix the problem. Unless you'd prefer these aliased instead? But it's a solidly established meme now, and we have tags for other memes...

genjar said:
Now that I've actually looked at the tags, I don't see why this is getting downvoted.
All of the meme posts have Hooters logo/uniform, so what's wrong with the implication? Like D.D.M. pointed out, some of them should be tagged as just Hooters, but not implicating these would not fix the problem. Unless you'd prefer these aliased instead? But it's a solidly established meme now, and we have tags for other memes...

Perhaps the femboy_hooters tag should be limited to posts where the 'femboy hooters' logo is featured or where 'femboy hooters' is specifically mentioned by name in the post. I'd be fine with a femboy_hooters -> hooters implication if that's the case. However, the femboy_hooters tag should be cleaned up first before the implication goes through.

d.d.m. said:
However, the femboy_hooters tag should be cleaned up first before the implication goes through.

I'd rather not put work into cleaning it if it might end up aliased...

There's also the hooters_uniform tag, which I've been hesitant to use for the same reason.

genjar said:
I'd rather not put work into cleaning it if it might end up aliased...

There's also the hooters_uniform tag, which I've been hesitant to use for the same reason.

Excuse, me I can clean up the posts manually, if you wish that is. I have a little experience, cleaning up and defining the Gadget_the_Wolf and leashed_top tag. Of course, it depends on whether or not the tag is going to be aliased or implicated to Hooters.

foolysh said:
Excuse, me I can clean up the posts manually, if you wish that is. I have a little experience, cleaning up and defining the Gadget_the_Wolf and leashed_top tag. Of course, it depends on whether or not the tag is going to be aliased or implicated to Hooters.

I'll switch my vote to a +1 so long as the tag is used more stringently. I can make a wiki for femboy_hooters based off my previous comment, if folks are alright with that.

For purely blacklisting purposes, I will say no for now; individuals searching 'hooters' will be invariably wanting (traditional) girl_hooters_(hotpants_and_ bewbs_in_tight_tees), and not boy_hooters_(we_aint_sure_we_jus_saw_us_some_mooseknuckle_but_thar_shur_ain't_no_bewbs_so_no_homo)

sharp_coyote said:
For purely blacklisting purposes, I will say no for now;

Being an implication, if this gets accepted they can just blacklist femboy_hooters and then they can then search hooters without issue.

riverinadryland said:
Being an implication, if this gets accepted they can just blacklist femboy_hooters and then they can then search hooters without issue.

That would blacklist posts that have both femboy hooters and female hooters (for people that don't normally want to see femboy hooters, but can tolerate it as long as female hooters are there too). It would similarly prevent searching for femboy hooters without female hooters (for people that normally like femboy hooters, but don't want to see any female hooters). If left separate, it would allow users to search for or blacklist more precisely what they want.

watsit said:
That would blacklist posts that have both femboy hooters and female hooters (for people that don't normally want to see femboy hooters, but can tolerate it as long as female hooters are there too). It would similarly prevent searching for femboy hooters without female hooters (for people that normally like femboy hooters, but don't want to see any female hooters). If left separate, it would allow users to search for or blacklist more precisely what they want.

Ah my mistake. I didn't realize the blacklist applied to implied tags. I don't really use the blacklist beyond a few broad tags that don't implicate to others.

Edit: As I think about it more, that wouldn't make sense for it to work that way. That would mean that, for example, blacklisting jeans would in turn block pants -> bottomwear -> clothing.

sharp_coyote said:
For purely blacklisting purposes, I will say no for now; individuals searching 'hooters' will be invariably wanting (traditional) girl_hooters_(hotpants_and_ bewbs_in_tight_tees), and not boy_hooters_(we_aint_sure_we_jus_saw_us_some_mooseknuckle_but_thar_shur_ain't_no_bewbs_so_no_homo)

Regardless of what the users might want to search for, restricting hooters to 'girl hooters' only is not how tags usually work. The hooters tag includes content such as post #1337491 anyway, even if the femboy meme weren't included.

I think we should just make it more searchable by adding a hooters_(restaurant) subtag for the location, and implying that and hooters_uniform to hooters. (That'd also allow for clothing implications from the uniform).

riverinadryland said:
Ah my mistake. I didn't realize the blacklist applied to implied tags. I don't really use the blacklist beyond a few broad tags that don't implicate to others.

Edit: As I think about it more, that wouldn't make sense for it to work that way. That would mean that, for example, blacklisting jeans would in turn block pants -> bottomwear -> clothing.

What I mean is that someone who wants to block all pictures of female hooters while seeing posts of femboy_hooters would have no way to reliably do so. If femboy_hooters implies hooters, then all femboy_hooters pics would also be tagged hooters regardless of anything else, so blacklisting hooters would block both female and femboy hooters, while blacklisting hooters -femboy_hooters would not block posts of female hooters that have at least one femboy_hooters as well. Similarly, someone who wants to search for female hooters, and exclude posts of femboy-only hooters, would have no way to do so since searching for hooters would return femboy-only hooters by implication, while searching hooters -femboy_hooters would exclude posts of female hooters that have at least one femboy_hooters.

genjar said:
Regardless of what the users might want to search for, restricting hooters to 'girl hooters' only is not how tags usually work...

I mostly agree, yet not entirely in this case, as above you make the argument All of the meme posts have Hooters logo/uniform

Well, sort of to the 'uniform' as it consists of orange booty_shorts and a white tank_top, yet in no way is the actual 'Hooters' logo used as there never was, and likely never will be a 'Femboy Hooters' restaurant (and yes, I am utilizing the term 'restaurant' loosely).

genjar said:
I think we should just make it more searchable by adding a hooters_(restaurant) subtag for the location, and implying that and hooters_uniform to hooters. (That'd also allow for clothing implications from the uniform).

Seems fairly searchable as it is right now, tho: if someone wants bewbs, they search hooters (and include -femboy_hooters if wanting no boys). If they want bulges instead, search femboy_hooters. Adding this implication, or further tags as you suggest just seems to complicate the issue more than needed.

It also appears we need a himbo_hooters tag for a couple of burly males who are in no way 'femboys' in the ways they fill out their orange booty_shorts and white tank_tops.

sharp_coyote said:
I mostly agree, yet not entirely in this case, as above you make the argument All of the meme posts have Hooters logo/uniform

Well, sort of to the 'uniform' as it consists of orange booty_shorts and a white tank_top, yet in no way is the actual 'Hooters' logo used as there never was, and likely never will be a 'Femboy Hooters' restaurant (and yes, I am utilizing the term 'restaurant' loosely).

Seems fairly searchable as it is right now, tho: if someone wants bewbs, they search hooters (and include -femboy_hooters if wanting no boys). If they want bulges instead, search femboy_hooters. Adding this implication, or further tags as you suggest just seems to complicate the issue more than needed.

It also appears we need a himbo_hooters tag for a couple of burly males who are in no way 'femboys' in the ways they fill out their orange booty_shorts and white tank_tops.

Okay, I populated and defined the Himbo_Hooters tag. Now that probably needs whatever treatment Femboy Hooters receives. Although, I'm not sure I chose a good metric to decide what falls into the Himbo Hooters category...

Two very different searches I would imagine

-1

camkitty said:
Two very different searches I would imagine

i think genjar already addressed that point-of-view:

Regardless of what the users might want to search for, restricting hooters to 'girl hooters' only is not how tags usually work

tag implications are a taxonomy; you can't determine taxonomy by what seems convenient, it needs to reflect what is most correct.

bipface said: you can't determine taxonomy by what seems convenient, it needs to reflect what is most correct.

Tags exist specifically to make searching for posts more convenient. Ease of use should always win over being technically correct.

I don't disagree with this proposal though.

femboy hooters is a meme, and one that isn't actually related to the franchise. It's just some fetish content based off the uniform with text tweaks.

versperus said:
femboy hooters is a meme, and one that isn't actually related to the franchise. It's just some fetish content based off the uniform with text tweaks.

Well, yeah, but that didn't stop several other memes from getting their own copyrighted tags (Piper Perri Surrounded, Instant Loss 2Koma, Virgin vs. Chad), despite there inherently mundane nature.

foolysh said:
Well, yeah, but that didn't stop several other memes from getting their own copyrighted tags (Piper Perri Surrounded, Instant Loss 2Koma, Virgin vs. Chad), despite there inherently mundane nature.

those aren't copyrights, (actual copyrights, memes are just categorized as that) a meme tag can exist without it being attached to something.

The tag implication femboy_hooters -> hooters (forum #293413) has been rejected by @Millcore.