Soo. I just noticed that while ear_piercing implies piercing, it doesn't imply jewellery. I think it wouldn't be unreasonable if it did. Rather, it'd make sense if piercing implied jewellery

Also, pierced_ears has (as far as I see) no implications and also fewer images tagged as such. What about aliasing it to ear_piercing?

Excellent ideas. I agree with all of this. all piercings ought to imply piercing, and jewelry :D

also, they should probably also have aliases from the peirced version of the words as well because people can't spell (like me)

SnowWolf said:
Excellent ideas. I agree with all of this. all piercings ought to imply piercing, and jewelry :D

also, they should probably also have aliases from the peirced version of the words as well because people can't spell (like me)

one thing ive noticed is that some "nipple piercings" are weighted and some aren't and that should be specified

Honestly there are a lack of tags refering to thigns being done to breasts. we've got ways of touching, groping etc down perfectly, but not the more "interesting" ideas like pulling, stretching, binding, or more "abusive" methods of breast play. (disclaiming: I did no searches for tags to back up my point, I could be wrong.) I think nipple_weights might be a tag, though... yeah it is. there are 3 pictures tagged with it :P

I'll clean up some of this later, but.. this area Needs Improvement

There may be more similar things, such as lip_ring --> lip_piercing that need to happen, but I can't tell. Every time I search for tag implications it gives me Downbooru.

That being said, I think anything that has "piercing" in it should imply jewelry.

Bump for "is this going anywhere?"

Unrelated, but I also noticed we have both "sleeping" and "asleep" tags. Seems like one oughta be aliased to the other, I honestly don't know that there's a difference when it comes to pictures.

For what it's worth, I've retagged all of the 'asleep' pictures tp be 'sleeping' instead XD

RedOctober said:
Soo. I just noticed that while ear_piercing implies piercing, it doesn't imply jewellery. I think it wouldn't be unreasonable if it did. Rather, it'd make sense if piercing implied jewellery

Hmmm. What about bits of bone, a needle, a wooden stick etc. Would that be considered jewelry as well?

Tha'ts a fair arguement, actually.

One COULD say that it's jewelery anyone because it's adorning one's body. BUT... would that really be what people are looking for when they search for jewelery...? D:

swamprootwolf said:
Hmmm. What about bits of bone, a needle, a wooden stick etc. Would that be considered jewelry as well?

Not a bad point. I've not personally seen any images on here where someone was being pierced by something other than jewelry, but that certainly doesn't mean they don't exist.

swamprootwolf said:
Hmmm. What about bits of bone, a needle, a wooden stick etc. Would that be considered jewelry as well?

As I was doing a looot of cleaning up of the piercing tags, I came looking for this thread, and I realized I never actually answered this.

I'd say that if the person is wearing the bone, yes. If it's an external object placed on or in the body for aesthetic adornment, yes. If the person is being "pierced" in the literal sense of the word by a stick, or they've broken their leg and it's sticking out through their skin, it should probably be tagged with "wounded" or something, rather than "piercing."

RedOctober said:
Soo. I just noticed that while ear_piercing implies piercing, it doesn't imply jewellery. I think it wouldn't be unreasonable if it did. Rather, it'd make sense if piercing implied jewellery

Also, pierced_ears has (as far as I see) no implications and also fewer images tagged as such. What about aliasing it to ear_piercing?

You can technically have pierced ears without any piercings being won though. I wouldn't add any implications or aliases. (but clearly note that pierced ears refers to ear that are pierced BUT without any earrings.)

Lyokira said:
You can technically have pierced ears without any piercings being won though. I wouldn't add any implications or aliases. (but clearly note that pierced ears refers to ear that are pierced BUT without any earrings.)

this is true, but I don't think most people would draw a character without piercings under normal circumstances.. and if they did, who would notice the small dimple? and for larger pericings, there is the stretched ears tag which doens'th ave any aliases or impications attached to it...

Is there any reasons why adding earring also adds facial piercing?

Or did somebody decide that the ear makes up the face?

The ear is part of the head/face region. It counts as a facial piercing.

I've...never, ever heard of ear piercings being considered facial piercings until now.

Then again, the only time I really hear about piercings is corporate dress policies, which usually forbid facial piercings but never forbid normal (non-stretched) ear piercings.

123easy said:
The ear is part of the head/face region. It counts as a facial piercing.

head yes, face no.
Thats why I find the implication odd.

Face typically is the adding up of the forhead, eyes, nose, mouth, chin and cheeks.

Well, to be specific to the most thinnest line, it's "ear and face piercings" but it oft is shortened to just "facial piercings" when talking about piercings in general. It's mostly something I've seen happening online rather than IRL, though a few piercing/tattoo parlours I've been in/know people who work at have used the term facial piercing to reference anything done in the front hemisphere of the head.