In response to topic #27397, there are 3 main tags to describe a "focus" or emphasis on specific parts of the body - *_focus, *_shot, & *_close-up.
Partially due to their naming, these tags are prone to getting mistagged a lot which is why I want to suggest linking them all together (and maybe invalidating some).

The purpose/definition of each tag is basically:

• *_focus are for posts that focus on that particular body part & shows the rest of the character.
• *_shot are for posts that focus on that particular body part only & hides the rest of the character.
• *_close-up are to be used in tandem with close-up, which can either be a *_shot or a cutaway. (<-- will come back to this later)

Compiled below are three lists of the relevant tags for reference (ordered from top to bottom of the body).

Suggestion #1: I would like to suggest using *_focus as the umbrella tag for all posts that feature a focus onto a specific body part.
This means going against the separation of *_focus tags and *_shot tags as I do not see the need for its separation.
E.g., penis_shot implicate --> penis_focus

Suggestion #2: Invalidate (or do something with) close-up. At this point, it seems redundant to keep considering that we already have the *_focus and *_shot tags.
E.g., penis_close-up alias --> penis_focus

What do you guys think? Any suggestions would be appreciated.

The implications would simplify those and probably reduce mistags.
But on the other hand, it'd make the usage of other *_focus tags hazier. solo_focus, humanoid_focus, 'not_furry_focus', and all those. The usage of the group is currently relatively easy to remember ('focus on x, but not just x'), and that'd no longer apply universally if *_shot gets lumped into *_focus.

Oh, and if someone's wondering why head_shot was aliased: because it was constantly mistagged for actual headshots (gore).

genjar said:
The implications would simplify those and probably reduce mistags.
But on the other hand, it'd make the usage of other *_focus tags hazier. solo_focus, humanoid_focus, 'not_furry_focus', and all those. The usage of the group is currently relatively easy to remember ('focus on x, but not just x'), and that'd no longer apply universally if *_shot gets lumped into *_focus.

I think the "body-parts" *_focus tags are distinct enough that their implications would not cause any confusion to the "other" *_focus tags (i.e. there is no solo_shot, male_shot, anthro_shot tags).

genjar said:
Oh, and if someone's wondering why head_shot was aliased: because it was constantly mistagged for actual headshots (gore).

Was it aliased? If I check both head_shot and headshot_portrait, I don't see any mention of it. I can see: head_shot, headshot (the bullet one), head_shot_portrait, headshot_profile, and headshot_(disambiguation) (which also mentions a shot_in_head tag that appears to be empty).

As far as the main topic: If there's any desire to keep the *_focus tags all the same, then I honestly would've said to alias the *_close-up tags to the *_shot tags. But if *_shot gets implicated to *_focus, then it might be easier to alias *_close-up to that, seeing as how it'd be the higher one in the hierarchy (and thus less likely to cause too many mistags).

I'm not actually sure how I feel about separating them or not, though. But I'll agree that *_close-up needs to be aliased somewhere. It seems redundant; the only use I can even think of for it is, like mentioned above, cutaways. But there'd be no easy way to attach them to that, without causing mistagging.

vulkalu said:
Was it aliased? If I check both head_shot and headshot_portrait, I don't see any mention of it. I can see: head_shot, headshot (the bullet one), head_shot_portrait, headshot_profile, and headshot_(disambiguation) (which also mentions a shot_in_head tag that appears to be empty).

Well, I’d say. I could have sworn that I saw head_shot being on the aliased tag section for headshot_portrait.

But it seems that on the wikis for the *_shot tags, the link for head_shot redirects to headshot_portrait. Meaning that there was an intent to alias them together.

Either that or it is pending the disambiguation with headshot (see topic #22568).

As far as the main topic: If there's any desire to keep the *_focus tags all the same, then I honestly would've said to alias the *_close-up tags to the *_shot tags. But if *_shot gets implicated to *_focus, then it might be easier to alias *_close-up to that, seeing as how it'd be the higher one in the hierarchy (and thus less likely to cause too many mistags).

I'm not actually sure how I feel about separating them or not, though. But I'll agree that *_close-up needs to be aliased somewhere. It seems redundant; the only use I can even think of for it is, like mentioned above, cutaways. But there'd be no easy way to attach them to that, without causing mistagging.

Currently the *_close-up tags need some cleaning.
I did thought of aliasing them to *_shot at first, but the vast majority of them seem to indicate *_focus (e.g, penis_close-up).
And since we might be implicating penis_shot with penis_focus, it will all be lumped together in that case.

As for the cutaways, would it be erroneous if we'd included *_shot if it's just one part of the image?

Apologies, I think I made my last post way too obscure (I was typing in a hurry).

thegreatwolfgang said:
Well, I’d say. I could have sworn that I saw head_shot being on the aliased tag section for headshot_portrait.

But it seems that on the wikis for the *_shot tags, the link for head_shot redirects to headshot_portrait. Meaning that there was an intent to alias them together.

Either that or it is pending the disambiguation with headshot (see topic #22568).

Strange. Maybe someone should bring that up again, figure out what to do with those tags.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Currently the *_close-up tags need some cleaning.
I did thought of aliasing them to *_shot at first, but the vast majority of them seem to indicate *_focus (e.g, penis_close-up).
And since we might be implicating penis_shot with penis_focus, it will all be lumped together in that case.

I'll admit I hadn't actually looked at what the tag was being used for up until now, and was basing my opinion solely off the tag names and the example off of close-up. It's also possible I got confused somewhere in the middle there. But you seem to be right on what the majority of its use is. In that case, maybe sort the pictures from *_close-up to their appropriate tags, and then alias the *_close-up tags to their respective *_focus tags? That's what makes the most sense to me, based on the majority usage.

thegreatwolfgang said:
As for the cutaways, would it be erroneous if we'd included *_shot if it's just one part of the image?

For clarification's sake, my last lines there were meant to be talking about directly aliasing *_close-up to cutaway, as the name initially made me think of cutaways, but aliasing them that way wouldn't make sense, especially now that I know what the *_close-up tags have been mostly used for. Apologies for any confusion I might've caused.

Based off of crotch_shot's wiki, I'd assume that sort of thing would be erroneous, or maybe only in the context of model_sheets? Someone with better knowledge than me should probably answer that.

vulkalu said:
Based off of crotch_shot's wiki, I'd assume that sort of thing would be erroneous, or maybe only in the context of model_sheets? Someone with better knowledge than me should probably answer that.

That's what I thought as well, but I think the purpose of excluding the *_shot tags from model_sheets is to stop people from mistagging disembodied_*.
For example, using penis_shot & pussy_shot on this would be erroneous as they are supposed to be disembodied_penis & disembodied_pussy.
post #2403048

However, I feel that using penis_shot & cloaca_shot on this would be okay.
post #2045885

I'd be in favour of renaming the *_focus tags entirely, it gets a bit too muddy with the other collection of *_focus tags. It's not likely to cause confusion, sure, but we shouldn't need to risk causing confusion in the first place; why reuse the same name for different sets of tags?

strikerman said:
I'd be in favour of renaming the *_focus tags entirely,

Same here, if someone can think of a better name. I've got nothing.

Renaming *_shot group might also be a good idea. I bet something like cropped_* or *_cropshot would get mistagged less...

I find x_closeup or x_cropshot to be more a more intuitive way to refer to images that contain only one bodypart than x_shot, but it does seem like we don't need both x_shot and x_closeup.