Danbooru

Create alias hair_touching -> hair-to-hair

Posted under Tags

Imo, don't think this is a good idea, hair touching could also be confused with "touching the hair (with the hands/other)", but we already have the tags:
hand_in_own_hair (one's own)
hand_in_another's_hair (other people's)
and a number of other tags for more specific actions.
Whereas for the action you mean, I see that the hair-to-hair tag has 20 posts (of which many are parents) and that, essentially, describes what is already described by the heads_together tag (and sometimes both are tagged).
I would be of the opinion to nuke hair-to-hair or create an alias:
hair-to-hair -> heads_together
although the number of posts is so low that it can be done effortlessly by hand.
If it is the actual distance of the heads that creates a problem (hair touch but without real contact between the skin of the heads, for example) then I can understand, but in this case we would need to clean up the entire heads_together tag, which has numerous examples of this type.
Moreover, there are even tags that specify the parts that are being touched.

The artist doesn't always bother to draw the hairs intertwining in heads together posts. This is detail that's worth tagging.

I do agree that this particular alias is not the best though, but I feel like an alias could help people find the tag easier. Which is why I asked for suggestions.

I thought of intertwined hair like intertwined tails but that's apparently already another small tag.
It's hard to describe these things and make it sound specific.

Updated

Admiral_Pectoral said:

The artist doesn't always bother to draw the hairs intertwining in heads together posts. This is detail that's worth tagging.

I do agree that this particular alias is not the best though, but I feel like an alias could help people find the tag easier. Which is why I asked for suggestions.

I thought of intertwined hair like intertwined tails but that's apparently already another small tag.
It's hard to describe these things and make it sound specific.

The thing is that to me the images currently inside hair-to-hair seem conceptually very similar to what is already present in heads_together.
I give an example:
this one is tagged only hair-to-hair: post #5782485
while this one is tagged only heads_together: post #707356
to me they seem conceptually identical for the hair thing and both could be tagged with both or only one of these tags.
Heads_together has several of these examples, so... gardening time, i guess?! ._.

And I didn't know about the intertwined_hair tag, looking at it, doesn't it describe already the action that you require?
Example: post #1468027 // post #5610924
Some more specific examples would be helpful, though, because maybe I didn't understand what you mean specifically.

I don't agree with nuking the tag, I think it's a detail that not many artworks utilize and it should be taggable.
I only opened this topic to find more appropriate aliases for it to make it easier to find for others, but got it nuked instead because I didn't have time to respond in a week? bruh

This is not the first time I open a topic like this (topic #18881)
We went from noses touching not counting for heads together but now just hair does?

TheScorpion said:

The thing is that to me the images currently inside hair-to-hair seem conceptually very similar to what is already present in heads_together.

You're seriously comparing post #707356 from 12 years to a tag made a few months ago?? It's a new tag that hasn't been populated yet, of course it won't be tagged on a bunch of things.

Conceptually, sure it's similar, but so are a lot of other posts under noses touching or head on head but we never implied those to heads together.

The point of the hair-to-hair tag is the detail of the hair actually touching which isn't always drawn (usually the designs are just drawn on top of each other instead of bothering with this detail).
This is especially the case for short haired characters male characters like post #5671709 , post #4676665 and post #5441549.

post #5782485, and post #5782547 were tagged only hair-to-hair because their heads don't look nearly close enough to be heads together. It feels wrong that it's tagged that now considering prior discussion about the tag.

TheScorpion said:
And I didn't know about the intertwined_hair tag, looking at it, doesn't it describe already the action that you require?
Example: post #1468027 // post #5610924
Some more specific examples would be helpful, though, because maybe I didn't understand what you mean specifically.

How is that anything like what I described. That feels like a tag for a very specific thing done with characters that have very long hair.

Updated

I don't see a point in a tag like this, for the simple reason that most posts for heads together have hair touching. Unless two characters are cheek-to-cheek in a very specific position, there's always hair touching one way or another.
Just looking at the first 100 posts for heads_together -cheek-to-cheek I couldn't find a single example where the hair weren't touching (excluding animals). Even something like post #5725334 or post #5761657 or post #5806016 you could argue would fall under this hypotetical tag. It just seems like padding.

I can see what you mean. Maybe the tag's name was too generic.

What I wanted to be able to tag with this was definitely not just stuff like post #5761657 or post #5806016. These posts are definitely heads together but they lack the detail of the hair actually folding on top of each other like post post #5725334.

Then there's also stuff like post #5782485 where it's clearly a highlight and meant to imply intimacy but the heads aren't close enough for heads together. Unless we redefine it to include them or something.

Anyway, my proposed solution is to either

The tag already includes stuff like post #4720978 and post #5610924 which aren't similar.

1