Implicating Nipple_tuft -> Naturally_censored.

Reason:

A nipple tuft doesn't necessarily cover up the nipple enough to consider it 'censored', naturally or not.

corgi_bread said:
A nipple tuft doesn't necessarily cover up the nipple enough to consider it 'censored', naturally or not.

General: nipple tuft

Images or animations depicting a topless or nude female character whose nipples are hidden by tufts of fur on her breasts, a form of natural censoring.

Just a thought, there are currently 11 images with the "nipple_tuft" tag.
Maybe just tag them?

Halite said:
Just a thought, there are currently 11 images with the "nipple_tuft" tag.
Maybe just tag them?

Backseat modding? Tagging is becoming impossible for me because my phone doesn't like Internet nor software keyboards.

Even then, it's an intelligent [Edit]Implication[/Edit], so should be done.

[Edit] Meant Implication, didn't notice the typo. Considering that the topic at hand was about an implication and I was stating my agreement, you should have assumed as such rather than been a dick about it, Halite- Even if your avatar is of one, that doesn't mean you have to be one.

If it gets denied because of a lack of total tags, that's fine. I still say it should be put in for consideration as an implication. Just because it's not common doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.[/Edit]

123easy said:
Even then, it's an intelligent alias, so should be done.

We aren't talking about an alias.
And as has been stated, there are situations where there could be nipple tufts, without being actually censored.
On top of that, there have been numerous aliases and implications denied because they aren't common enough to be worth having that alias or implication.
In this case, it's infinitely simpler to just tag the appropriate images of those 11 tagged with "nipple_tuft" with the natural_censoring tag as well and be done with it.

123easy said:
Even then, it's an intelligent alias, so should be done.

There is only 11 images with this tag like the other user said, I dont see the point as well as its such a low number.

I think i shoudnt have the tag censored because her breast is coverd by a bra or clothing and you cant really see the nipple but if it was censored it show a black Line thats my opinion

blackbirdt said:
I think i shoudnt have the tag censored because her breast is coverd by a bra or clothing and you cant really see the nipple but if it was censored it show a black Line thats my opinion

That would not be naturally_censored, but censored and censor_bar (assuming that tag is still kicking around and hasn't been aliased to something else yet). Naturally_censored is when it would be a situation where it would be bare and available for all to see, but a caveat of biology that the character has keeps them from baring all- in this case, via a tuft of fur that covers the nipples.

But if it was availible to see for all with nothing covering the cock,boob,vagina,etc. Its not even censored at all this might be a little bent back but i tried

A nipple tuft is a nipple tuft. I don't see any reason why it should be defined by it's ability to censor.

You'll either end up making nipple_tuft too specific or natural_censoring too general if you try to force the two tags together.

DrHorse said:
A nipple tuft is a nipple tuft. I don't see any reason why it should be defined by it's ability to censor.

You'll either end up making nipple_tuft too specific or natural_censoring too general if you try to force the two tags together.

A nipple tuft already specifies that it naturally censors a nipple that, sans tuft, would be visible. https://e621.net/post/show/299495 https://e621.net/post/show/261055 https://e621.net/post/show/77069 are all examples (and you can look at the tag for the rest if you want). Naturally_censored is, and I quote, "When a character is partially or fully naked yet the nipples and/or genitals are not visible, despite not being covered. Whether hidden by the fur or the artist simply didn't draw them, this tag applies."

If that means that nipple_tuft is *too* specific and should be aliased to naturally_censored, then it should. However, if it is enough of a fetish to remain separate from naturally_censored (which I personally agree with, even if there are only a few images here so far- I know that it's rather prevalent elsewhere; One such prominent artist is Avoid_posting material, Tailsrulz, which does cut out a decent portion of easily obtainable material- but I do believe it worth keeping separate.) then it should imply it because by the very act of existing a nipple tuft naturally censors the nipple- and if visible (since TWYS declares if you can't see it don't tag, it won't be tagged unless it's visible) is automatically naturally censoring the nipple in every occurance.

123easy said:
A nipple tuft already specifies that it naturally censors a nipple that, sans tuft, would be visible...

Wiki entries aren't written in stone.
The one in question was created by one person, with no input from anyone else.

Edit: Boom, problem solved.

Yeah, this seems to be more of an issue with a shitty wiki entry than something we need force implications on it.

NotMeNotYou said:
Yeah, this seems to be more of an issue with a shitty wiki entry than something we need force implications on it.

Not that shitty when you consider that every image of a nipple tuft is exactly what the wiki entry defined. -.-

123easy said:
Not that shitty when you consider that every image of a nipple tuft is exactly what the wiki entry defined. -.-

If one person defines the tag "blue" in the wiki as "every image with a blue flower in the upper right corner of the image" and proceeds to tag pictures according to this definition then yes, the wiki is "proper" for the definition used.

In this case the definition is too specific, nipple_tufts can show the nipples, thus the tag naturally_censored would be wrong.

I'm also sure we had a couple pictures with what I just described but I can't seem to find any at the moment, they weren't many but they were there.

NotMeNotYou said:
If one person defines the tag "blue" in the wiki as "every image with a blue flower in the upper right corner of the image" and proceeds to tag pictures according to this definition then yes, the wiki is "proper" for the definition used.

In this case the definition is too specific, nipple_tufts can show the nipples, thus the tag naturally_censored would be wrong.

I'm also sure we had a couple pictures with what I just described but I can't seem to find any at the moment, they weren't many but they were there.

...You're not getting it. Nipple tuft can NEVER show nipples. I'm saying that *every piece of art that contains nipple tufts is naturally censoring the nipples*. They are basically fur pasties. Thus the name, nipple tufts. They are naturally self-censoring; whether they cover the entire areola or not they still cover the nipple- the only one that does this currently would be https://e621.net/post/show/261055 and those only show the bottom of the areola, but, again, still cover the nipple. It's basically furry underboob. Again, tailsrulz has a HUGE selection of art with this trope/tag/whathaveyou (though hes DNP) that proves that it is at least popular to some extent, and quite likely there's a plethora of posts that simply haven't been tagged to their full extent that also display nipple tufts as well.

123easy said:
...You're not getting it. Nipple tuft can NEVER show nipples. I'm saying that *every piece of art that contains nipple tufts is naturally censoring the nipples*. They are basically fur pasties. Thus the name, nipple tufts. They are naturally self-censoring; whether they cover the entire areola or not they still cover the nipple- the only one that does this currently would be https://e621.net/post/show/261055 and those only show the bottom of the areola, but, again, still cover the nipple. It's basically furry underboob. Again, tailsrulz has a HUGE selection of art with this trope/tag/whathaveyou (though hes DNP) that proves that it is at least popular to some extent, and quite likely there's a plethora of posts that simply haven't been tagged to their full extent that also display nipple tufts as well.

Yeah thats why it has tuft in a tuft is like covering something

123easy said:
...You're not getting it. Nipple tuft can NEVER show nipples. I'm saying that *every piece of art that contains nipple tufts is naturally censoring the nipples*. They are basically fur pasties. Thus the name, nipple tufts. They are naturally self-censoring; whether they cover the entire areola or not they still cover the nipple- the only one that does this currently would be https://e621.net/post/show/261055 and those only show the bottom of the areola, but, again, still cover the nipple. It's basically furry underboob. Again, tailsrulz has a HUGE selection of art with this trope/tag/whathaveyou (though hes DNP) that proves that it is at least popular to some extent, and quite likely there's a plethora of posts that simply haven't been tagged to their full extent that also display nipple tufts as well.

So you want to define nipple_tuft as a tuft of hair that directly and always overlaps the nipple and not as a general tuft of hair on the peak of the breast, regardless of the ability of said tuft to hide the nipple?

That is something different of course.
Dunno how the others would like this, but that will also need a slight rewording of the wiki to make that fact a bit more clear on the intent of the tag.

What do the others say about this?
Nipple_tuft only for tufts hiding the nipple or nipple_tuft more broad, regardless of nipple hiding capabilities?

NotMeNotYou said:
So you want to define nipple_tuft as a tuft of hair that directly and always overlaps the nipple and not as a general tuft of hair on the peak of the breast, regardless of the ability of said tuft to hide the nipple?

That is something different of course.
Dunno how the others would like this, but that will also need a slight rewording of the wiki to make that fact a bit more clear on the intent of the tag.

What do the others say about this?
Nipple_tuft only for tufts hiding the nipple or nipple_tuft more broad, regardless of nipple hiding capabilities?

I agree with both but the Hiding part its that

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tuft

Tuft has nothing to do with covering, or hiding, or censoring, or anything like that.
It's simply a group of hair/fur/feathers that is sticking out instead of laying flat.
For example, the head of the tufted titmouse, which is a lovely bird and not a perverted thing at all, which has a tuft of feathers.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Tufted_Titmouse-27527-2.jpg

If you want to search for a tuft of fur that is censoring nipples, you can search "nipple_tuft natural_censoring".

If you have a tuft of fur around a nipple, but not fully covering it, it's still a nipple_tuft, because it's a tuft, in the nipple area.

If they're supposed to be fur pasties, then why not call them fur_pasties?

DrHorse said:
If they're supposed to be fur pasties, then why not call them fur_pasties?

Because which SOUNDS better, fur_pasties or nipple_tufts? Besides, pasties aren't natural parts of your body; You can quite easily have pasties on without having nipple tufts, even if they are fur tufted pasties- Like these. >_> http://www.labeshops.com/image/cache/data/coquette/1749_wh-650x650.jpg

123easy said:
Because which SOUNDS better, fur_pasties or nipple_tufts? Besides, pasties aren't natural parts of your body; You can quite easily have pasties on without having nipple tufts, even if they are fur tufted pasties- Like these. >_> http://www.labeshops.com/image/cache/data/coquette/1749_wh-650x650.jpg

They both sound good to me. fur_pasties just more accurately describes the fetish.

As for the pasties, it's all the same under TWYS. The only reason you can tell the difference between that image and other nipple_tufts is because it's real life.

DrHorse said:
They both sound good to me. fur_pasties just more accurately describes the fetish.

As for the pasties, it's all the same under TWYS. The only reason you can tell the difference between that image and other nipple_tufts is because it's real life.

For TWYS, if those pasties were used on a fur, you're right; They don't show the suporting cup beneath very well. The point though, was that you can have fur pasties without them being nipple tufts (and I swear I've seen some images sort of like that before).

123easy said:
For TWYS, if those pasties were used on a fur, you're right; They don't show the suporting cup beneath very well. The point though, was that you can have fur pasties without them being nipple tufts (and I swear I've seen some images sort of like that before).

So, the fur on a fur pastie doesn't necessarily cover the pastie?

DrHorse said:
So, the fur on a fur pastie doesn't necessarily cover the pastie?

https://e621.net/post/show/312945 The tassel doesn't fully cover the pastie, as one example of how it can work. Pasties still cover the entire nipple (and areola) but not all of the fluffy furred variety are a nipple cover without any other embellishment visible, for example http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/ODAwWDgwMA==/z/8n4AAOxyCSRSHQXD/$T2eC16VHJH4FHdM5c3VRBSHQ%28DMWhQ~~60_12.JPG?set_id=880000500F and http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/414JA1vso3L.jpg (but not http://static2.refinery29.com/bin/entry/aa2/x/993082/grumpy-cat-pasties.jpg ) ;)

Basically, to be a fur pastie (actual pastie) it just needs to be furred in some way, regardless of whether the fur is the part that actually covers the nipple area or not. (There's a much larger selection of those that DO cover the nipple area completely, I will admit, but it's broad enough a term that it covers pasties with fur on them that aren't necessarily nipple_tuft-alikes).

This thing is just very frustrating to make out