Tag Implication(s): frilly_(*)-> frills

frilled_swimsuit -> frills
frilled_bikini -> frills
frilled_thighhighs -> frills
frilled_bra -> frills
frilled_panties -> frills
frilly_skirt -> frills

Reason: Because only frilly_dress is implicated.

I'd be in favor of these implications.

And on a related note, we still haven't came to common agreement on frills and ruffles yet.

I'd still argue that frills should be aliased to ruffles The dictionary does not distinguish between them, and that would be better than ruffles -> frills, because of people wanting to use "frills" to mean "any decoration on clothing," including fringe and lace.

Bapabooie, you mentioned in the previous thread that you find them visually distinct...how, exactly?

I stand by my arguments from the first time this was discussed (forum #19169), Bapabooiee's is actually the second discussion on this matter.

Really though, it's sort of a silly topic to have had so much debate and no resolution. We ought to just pick a definition for our use and stick to it.

Similar to what I said in the last thread on it, I tend to prefer "frills" and frill* tags because it's the term that Japanese artists tend to use, sometimes even in the image itself, such as post #571929 and post #558072

Meh. While it'd be nice to keep them separate, we've never actually been able to figure out what distinguishes them, and the vast majority of taggers wouldn't have a clue either. I'm favoring just aliasing them all to frills at this point.

The suggested implications make sense either way though. Although should it be frilled_skirt to match the others?

Everything starting with "frilled_" already is a pretty good reason to go with frills over ruffles as the main tag. I'd like to see the "frilly_foo" versions aliased to "frilled_foo", but that's probably not a huge deal.

ds2096 said: Bapabooie, you mentioned in the previous thread that you find them visually distinct...how, exactly?

I do.

To put it simply, frills are "extensions" to clothing, while ruffles could basically be considered a "heavier", pleated version of frills. Ruffles would not be considered an extension to the clothing -- but more of an integral part of it. But trying to describe the difference between the two is hard, so I'll give some examples.

Frills: post #567769. Pretty much all of the lingerie has frills on them. When you look at them, it just feels like an extension to their clothing.

Ruffles: post #576395: The ruffles underneath her dress are very heavily used, and pleated. They don't look like they're just a simple extension to her under-dress.

Both: post #537556: This one could probably be considered ambiguous, but I think it has both. Her top is heavily pleated, and multi-layered. And while her bikini bottom is also multi-layered, I would consider them frills, as it looks like it's just "extending" it.

Ruffles: post #566145. They look like frills at first, but they look somewhat solid, making it look like the dress+frills are a compound object.

Frills: post #470292. If you were to cut-away all of the frills from her clothing, her clothes would probably still look fine, as frills look like they extend the clothing.

Re-iterating on my first definition, frills appear to be extensions to clothing, and sort of add "flair" -- but if the frills were to be removed, the clothing would still look fine. You could consider them as "tacked-on" cloth.

On the other hand, ruffles are "heavier" than frills, and appear to be integral to the look and design of the particular article of clothing; they are a hard-set union, and removing them would be problematic to the look of the clothing, and even its design.

In any case, the difference can still be pretty ambiguous, and differentiating between them might be hard, but I still consider them visually distinct.

And for the record, these are my own definitions. I've noticed that when it comes to resolving the whole frills vs. ruffles matter, people are always referring to Wikipedia and what it has to say about it. I say, screw Wikipedia, and let's come-up with our own reasonable definitions for the purposes of tagging visually distinct elements.

Ah! Okay. You're using "ruffles" to mean gathers, which may or may not occur near the edge of the fabric. I see what you're getting at, and it's true that "frills" has a connotation of something that could as easily be removed; but I think that the distinction you're drawing is way too complex to use for general tagging purposes.

(Also, I suspect you're mistaken about post #576395; if you'd constructed or even worn more petticoats, you'd understand how they work. A petticoat is built in tiers, where each tier adds more gathers--it's really very much like the iterations of a fractal, and has the same effect. (If you don't know what I mean, take a good look at a leaf of looseleaf lettuce.) The bottom layer is often, and appears in that picture to be, mostly ornamental, and only a few inches long.)