Aliasing cheerleader_uniform -> cheerleader.

Reason:

"Cheerleader" shouldn't even be a tag, because there's no way to tell anyway. Being in a cheerleader's outfit just means you're wearing that outfit.

Maybe if the image is a sporting event and the cheerleaders are performing their act, but not just a picture of someone in the suit.

I see literally no compelling reason to make this alias.

Foobaria said:
"Cheerleader" shouldn't even be a tag, because there's no way to tell anyway. Being in a cheerleader's outfit just means you're wearing that outfit.

Maybe if the image is a sporting event and the cheerleaders are performing their act, but not just a picture of someone in the suit.

I guess assumptions cannot be made all the time.

Time to rethink.

Besides, the uniform can be on a dresser, with no one wearing it.

Foobaria said:
"Cheerleader" shouldn't even be a tag, because there's no way to tell anyway. Being in a cheerleader's outfit just means you're wearing that outfit.

Maybe if the image is a sporting event and the cheerleaders are performing their act, but not just a picture of someone in the suit.

What if there's a football in it like post #190546?

TheHuskyK9 said:
What if there's a football in it like post #190546?

Still doesn't classify as such if you follow what Foobaria said.

But not just a picture of someone in the suit.

Or either of someone holding a football or any object that is relating to such a sport, it's highly ambiguous and subtle.

cheerleader_uniform's relationship with cheerleader isn't unique. There's also nurse_uniforms and nurses, maid_uniforms and maids, and even schoolgirl_uniforms and schoolgirls.

The cheerleaders deserve their uniforms just as much as nurses, maids, and schoolgirls do.

What is the meaningful difference between someone dressed up as a cheerleader and someone actually being a cheerleader? How does it affect the image in any way? Would cheerleader only be used if someone is currently in the act of cheerleading? If so, is that such a meaningful difference that we need to have two separate tags for it? Same goes for nurse, maid, and schoolgirl too.

If that were a meaningful difference, there could be a tag "cheerleading".

no, just no.

like the others said, if someone, probably an extremely masculine guy dressed up in a cheerleader uniform, does that mean that he's a cheerleader? Absolutely not. It could be a crossdressing thing, some girlfriend kink, among other situations. Same with maid, nurse, and schoolgirl.

There's no reason a male couldn't be a cheerleader, but that's irrelevant for the discussion.

KiwiPotato said:
no, just no.

like the others said, if someone, probably an extremely masculine guy dressed up in a cheerleader uniform, does that mean that he's a cheerleader? Absolutely not. It could be a crossdressing thing, some girlfriend kink, among other situations. Same with maid, nurse, and schoolgirl.

There is such a thing as male cheerleaders.

Digital_Kindness said:
There is such a thing as male cheerleaders.

Yeah, just like there are no females on the internets.

Frankly, I view nurse/nurse_uniform, cheerleader/cheerleader_uniforms, etcetera as being a clothed/clothing thing. That's how it's been tagged, and that's how I'm going to continue tagging in order to avoid arguments about male maids and male schoolgirls.

This male/female thing is entirely beside the point.

The big question here is: If it's dressed like a duck, is it tagged as a duck?

In my opinion, the answer is a resounding maybe. It would be difficult to establish an absolute procedure for tagging titles, so I think a common sense approach that abides by TWYS (all information should be coming from the tagged image alone) is the best fit.

A uniform can be a large indicator of a character's title, but it shouldn't be the only factor considered when tagging such. The tagger should take into account things like a character's actions, dialogue, and surroundings in addition to their possession of a uniform or any other objects associated with a title as contributing factors toward assigning the title in question.

MaShCr said:
The big question here is: If it's dressed like a duck, is it tagged as a duck?

<nitpicking>
Species thing is different thing than profession. Character in post #285225 is a pony not a wolf, even if she would say "I'm a wolf!"

I know it sounds stupid, but someone had tagged this as a wolf.
</nitpicking>

MaShCr said:
It would be difficult to establish an absolute procedure for tagging titles, so I think a common sense approach that abides by TWYS (all information should be coming from the tagged image alone) is the best fit.

A uniform can be a large indicator of a character's title, but it shouldn't be the only factor considered when tagging such. The tagger should take into account things like a character's actions, dialogue, and surroundings in addition to their possession of a uniform or any other objects associated with a title as contributing factors toward assigning the title in question.

Common sense isn't as common as you'd think, nor does it make much sense to have vague, tautological definitions for tags like "if it does nurse actions, has nurse dialogue, and is surrounded by nurse things, then it's a nurse". We have perfectly functional clothing system already, can't we just integrate the *uniform tags into that?

ippiki_ookami said:
Yeah, just like there are no females on the internets.

See: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_tfyhzV8tJq8/S_QYTYtGg2I/AAAAAAAAOvY/0goGtq-zNIE/s320/Spartan+cheerleaders1.jpg

I distinctly remember a couple of them when I was in school years and years ago.

DrHorse said:
Common sense isn't as common as you'd think, nor does it make much sense to have vague, tautological definitions for tags like "if it does nurse actions, has nurse dialogue, and is surrounded by nurse things, then it's a nurse". We have perfectly functional clothing system already, can't we just integrate the *uniform tags into that?

My argument is in regard to titles, not uniforms. Obviously clothes are just another object, so *_uniforms and clothing should be tagged whenever they are present, regardless of how they are or aren't being used.

And that definition isn't tautological, the duck test has been used in court rulings for years.

10 Famous Male College Cheerleaders

Digital_Kindness said:
See: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_tfyhzV8tJq8/S_QYTYtGg2I/AAAAAAAAOvY/0goGtq-zNIE/s320/Spartan+cheerleaders1.jpg

I distinctly remember a couple of them when I was in school years and years ago.

Whoops, I misread your post. Thought you said there weren't. Disregard.

DrHorse said:
Frankly, I view nurse/nurse_uniform, cheerleader/cheerleader_uniforms, etcetera as being a clothed/clothing thing. That's how it's been tagged, and that's how I'm going to continue tagging in order to avoid arguments about male maids and male schoolgirls.

Gonna necro this thread because I think this is really an awesome point. Nurse implies the character is a nurse (we can infer this from the character's surroundings, mannerisms, et al) vs. simply wearing some variant of the uniform that nurses typically wear, and the same applies for other commonly known uniforms like this.