Wiki suggestions: frills,ruffles

jxh2154 said:
This bit would need to be confirmed first. "Ruffles becomes gathers" sounds like "alias ruffles -> gathers", which would have an impact on the second clause there.

Well it's a bit hidden now but:

Cyberia-Mix said:
jxh, just in case, please remember to move ruffles to gathers before aliasing ruffles to frills.

I still have no preference about the direction of the alias. At least, keeping frills as the final name avoids renaming frilled_X tags into ruffled_X.

SystemXS said:
I have my doubts about this due to distinctions mentioned in earlier posts, -1.

Once again, if you don't want the implication then how do you suggest we tag gathered dresses for example? gathered_dress + dress + gathers ? Simply dress + gathers?
I assume the frilled_X tags exist because frills alone is not accurate enough when multiple pieces of clothing on the image can be relevant. If you think so, then it's logical that you also introduce gathered_X tags for gathers. But then you end up with, say, frilled_dress and gathered_dress returning completely separate results when the visuals are often very ambiguous. I personally don't mind that since I can make the distinction in the first place, but it's counter-intuitive for most users.
For this reason, I believe it's better not to create these gathered_X tags, and have a gathered dress tagged dress + gathers + frilled_dress + frills + trim, even though it's partly wrong.

SystemXS said:
embroidery implies trim

How about things like post #896588? Part of it is trim decoration (I wouldn't actually call that trim, but I can comply for practical uses), but the flower petals aren't.

Cyberia-Mix said:
Once again, if you don't want the implication then how do you suggest we tag gathered dresses for example? gathered_dress + dress + gathers ? Simply dress + gathers?

I assume the frilled_X tags exist because frills alone is not accurate enough when multiple pieces of clothing on the image can be relevant.

I do find this an iffy point of discussion as on one side we have tag combinations like color_legwear + legweartype, which also loses accuracy when there are multiple legwear types and colors present. On the other, there are specific tags like the frilled_clothingtype ones.
Overall, simply dress + gathers sounded good to me also on account of those legwear tags springing from an earlier color_legweartype format.
But I don't see a problem with adding gathered_dress.
(personally I'm still hoping for a meta-link/hierarchical structure to be implemented at some point as also proposed in forum #35036, but I digress)

Cyberia-Mix said:
But then you end up with, say, frilled_dress and gathered_dress returning completely separate results when the visuals are often very ambiguous.

I was under the impression the distinction between gathers and frills/ruffles was a major reason for the aliasing of frills <-> ruffles and the gathers tag.

Cyberia-Mix said:
How about things like post #896588? Part of it is trim decoration (I wouldn't actually call that trim, but I can comply for practical uses), but the flower petals aren't.

Those are all technically trim to me, but I wouldn't have any objections to letting that implication be done manually.

SystemXS said:
I do find this an iffy point of discussion as on one side we have tag combinations like color_legwear + legweartype, which also loses accuracy when there are multiple legwear types and colors present. On the other, there are specific tags like the frilled_clothingtype ones.

I think we made the "color_legwear + legweartype" system because once we had started tagging other colors than white and black, all colors × multiple legwear types rapidly turned this into a clusterfuck no longer practical to use. We lost accuracy on purpose because the granularity had become a bother.

SystemXS said:
Overall, simply dress + gathers sounded good to me also on account of those legwear tags springing from an earlier color_legweartype format.

Hopefully you'll agree that unlike X_legwear tags, gathers by itself doesn't tell where it applies. dress + gathers is accurate only when you have no other piece of clothing tagged.

SystemXS said:
I was under the impression the distinction between gathers and frills/ruffles was a major reason for the aliasing of frills <-> ruffles and the gathers tag.

Personally I basically see this the same as very_long_hair and long_hair.
When looking for long_hair (frills/ruffles) it's likely that by default you want very_long_hair (gathers) included in the results.

SystemXS said:
Those are all technically trim to me, but I wouldn't have any objections to letting that implication be done manually.

I was looking for a name that would help differentiating trimming embroidery from non-trimming one, because yeah when that tag starts growing, seeing the trim tag everywhere would be a problem I think.

I just took another look at the full thread, and some time to think about it, and have changed my mind. Having frills implicate gathers makes perfect sense if there are gathered_clothingtype tags that are not implied by their frilled_clothingtype counterparts. Then gathers can be used for the "look" (as is technically also correct), and frilled_x/gathered_x for actual distinction of it being "added" or "a more integral part".
Just like, say, lace works; It has lace-trimmed_* and lace_* which do not imply each other. (frilled_* is basically gather-trimmed_*, and all that's missing is a lace-trimmed (frills in the comparison) tag to be able to search for any clothing type made of lace, or only those with lace trims by way of +/-lace-trimmed. An ability frills provides.)

Basically fully agreeing with:

MyrMindservant said:
We're going to move the content of ruffles to gathers, then alias ruffles to frills, and then implicate gathers to frills, right?

Thus:

• new tag gathers
• ruffles mass-edited to gathers
• ruffles aliased to frills or vice-versa
• ruffled_* aliased to frilled_*.
• frills implies gathers
• new tag trim
• frills implies trim
• fringe implies trim
• new tags gathered_*
• gathered_dress
• ...
• wikis make clear the distinction between gathered and pleated on danbooru

While at it:

• embroidery related wikis could be cleaned up
• tassel could get a wiki

I believe forum #66477 still stands for definitions and such that may be needed?

Cyberia-Mix said:
I was looking for a name that would help differentiating trimming embroidery from non-trimming one, because yeah when that tag starts growing, seeing the trim tag everywhere would be a problem I think.

Embroidery is pretty much always a form of trim when applied to clothing.
If you're looking for decorations on the edges of clothing, I believe that's edging. Maybe that tag should be made too...
You are right however in that it can be applied to things other than clothing. I'm not sure about a name, but I think just not having it imply trim automatically is good enough for now.

SystemXS said:
Thus:

• new tag gathers
• ruffles mass-edited to gathers
• ruffles aliased to frills or vice-versa
• ruffled_* aliased to frilled_*.
• frills implies gathers
• new tag trim
• frills implies trim
• fringe implies trim
• new tags gathered_*
• gathered_dress
• ...
• wikis make clear the distinction between gathered and pleated on danbooru

I have some notes to this:
1. So far frills was a more widely used tag and there are frilled_* tags so I think that it would be better to alias to it.
2. There are no ruffled_* tags created at the moment.
3. I agree with Cyberia-Mix about implicating gathers to frills. Not the other way around.
4. If we go with gathers -> frills implication, then there are no need to make new gathered_* tag, we can use frilled_* for that.
5. The creation of trim umbrella tag is arguable.

To be short, I'm trying to advocate keeping these things simple and intuitive. (for those who didn't follow this thread: see my forum #66576 post)

MyrMindservant said:
1. So far frills was a more widely used tag and there are frilled_* tags so I think that it would be better to alias to it.
2. There are no ruffled_* tags created at the moment.

Well, it really doesn't matter which way it goes so we can just take the easiest route, that indeed being aliasing to frills.

MyrMindservant said:
3. I agree with Cyberia-Mix about implicating gathers to frills. Not the other way around.
4. If we go with gathers -> frills implication, then there are no need to make new gathered_* tag, we can use frilled_* for that.

No no, I am indeed supporting the gathers tag being added for every frills tag (frills implies gathers, gathers is implied by frills), which is what we're both trying to do, right? It certainly doesn't make sense to do it the other way around.

MyrMindservant said:
5. The creation of trim umbrella tag is arguable.

It is. Personally I came to the conclusion it'd be useful enough.

SystemXS said:
Just like, say, lace works; ... +/-lace-trimmed. An ability frills provides.)

Also just as a note, both cases will fail with multiple characters wearing different things, but I'd consider that a separate and more widespread problem more inherent to danbooru's features.

SystemXS >

I think you got the order of the implication wrong when reading MyrMindservant.

Regardless, this is getting so complicated that I made a chart to summarize your reasoning. Here.

This is quite the ultimate method you got here. I agree it's good for being both technically correct and super clean (and gosh if I like when things are accurate and clean).

However as is it doesn't address my point.
Take again post #566145. Those are technically ruffled dresses just because when you look closely you can see that the short gathered part actually goes under the skirt rather than on the skirt, otherwise they'd have been frilled dresses. Are we fine with users searching frilled_dress missing such posts?
This thread came up because the distinction is much harder to make than it is between lace-trimmed and lace objects.
How do we treat ambiguous cases like this post then? Adding both tags like we do for hair/eye colors? Establishing one tag as the default like we do for pantyhose vs thighhighs? Putting no tag at all because too subtle to actually be worth tagging?

If we can draw a clear line that prevents users from misunderstanding the tags' use then I'd like to follow your model. As long as not finding frilled dresses and gathered dresses together in your regular search can make sense.

The other thing is that since gathers would become the main tag, we have to scan ruffles to add gathered_X tags accordingly before it gets flooded by frills, and personally I don't have the time for that at all.

SystemXS said:
Embroidery is pretty much always a form of trim when applied to clothing.
If you're looking for decorations on the edges of clothing, I believe that's edging. Maybe that tag should be made too...
You are right however in that it can be applied to things other than clothing. I'm not sure about a name, but I think just not having it imply trim automatically is good enough for now.

Actually I thought trimming was only synonymous for edging, so I meant "non-trimming embroidery" as "embroidery not occurring on edges". Trimming simply as decorating does sound even more convenient.

Cyberia-Mix said:
I think you got the order of the implication wrong when reading MyrMindservant.

Yeah, I'm not entirely sure what's going where...

Cyberia-Mix said:
Regardless, this is getting so complicated that I made a chart to summarize your reasoning. Here.

Lol, wow. Looks about right. And it is getting kinda complicated.

Cyberia-Mix said:
Take again post #566145. Those are technically ruffled dresses just because when you look closely you can see that the short gathered part actually goes under the skirt rather than on the skirt, otherwise they'd have been frilled dresses.
How do we treat ambiguous cases like this post then? Adding both tags like we do for hair/eye colors? Establishing one tag as the default like we do for pantyhose vs thighhighs? Putting no tag at all because too subtle to actually be worth tagging?
If we can draw a clear line that prevents users from misunderstanding the tags' use then I'd like to follow your model.

Wait, I thought we were aliasing ruffles and frills because they were the same thing. I'll continue this post assuming you meant they're technically gathered dresses.

First of all, I'm not it's what you meant, but I'd like to clear up I didn't mean to make a distinction between inside/outside.
Now, I'll start out by saying those are all frills to me. The gathered parts are trimmed on as separate pieces. If there are multiple non-distinct layers under the dress (ie. not an obviously different piece of clothing, however they're actually... implemented) then the ends have frills, or the fabric is gathered in a way to make it look, in the overall design, as if they were frills to the dress, which is the type of thing I meant with "or is used as such".

Ruffle:
When gathered fabric is applied to (i.e. added on top of) clothing, as a trim, or is used as such. Compare to gathering, which is a more integral part of the base clothing layer.
The two can be hard to distinguish at times.

Say post #1024102. You can see the white is a separate layer with the bottom gathered, but really its main purpose there is to provide frills to the dress.

post #972719 is a great example of a gathered dress imo.
The bottom part could maybe be mistaken for frills, especially under the "used as if" clause, but I think this clause has lower priority over almost everything else (if that makes sense). Here, it's clear to me that it is just a change in the gathering, and not a trim or anything trying to be, even if it somewhat looks like it. Much the same as the white dress in post #1023928.

But yes, overall, it can be very confusing, there is a lot of potential for overlap, and sometimes its very hard to make a decision. post #915736 comes to mind. (I'd personally use gathered_dress for that)
I think it's fine to follow other tags in tagging both or using a default when uncertain. I don't really have any preference as to what is used here. Regardless, they will all at least have gathers tagged.
I'm not sure we can improve too much here without getting really complicated.

Cyberia-Mix said:
As long as not finding frilled dresses and gathered dresses together in your regular search can make sense.

They can be together if it's a gathered dress with frills like post #1022897 for example.

@SystemXS
It seems to me that you have a wrong idea about what gathers tag is created for, please see the beginning of this thread and forum #31933.
Basically, we have frills and ruffles tags, the problem here is that these words are synonyms so ruffles tag was used for both frills and for what is described in forum #31933. The gathers is intended to be a new name for the concept described in that forum post.

If we implicate frills to gathers, like you propose, then all posts with frills will also have a gathers tag added to them, as a result we are polluting the less common concept with the more common.

As far as I see, the solutions above and forum #31933 are very similar. (swapping ruffles with gathers/gathered)
Put very simply, I think I've tried to add a bit of a technical layer to forum #31933's more "on feel" approach. They remain very compatible however.
I also agree with all examples shown, except post #566145. Using his own words, "If you were to cut-away all of the frills from her clothing, her clothes would probably still look fine".
And I would consider the top in post #537556 frills, but as said in both solutions; very ambiguous.

MyrMindservant said:
If we implicate frills to gathers, like you propose, then all posts with frills will also have a gathers tag added to them, as a result we are polluting the less common concept with the more common.

Yes, that is what I proposed after keeping frills and gathers separate was opposed because they look similar, both being gathered.
Either way, I can not see the opposite "all posts with gathers will also have a frills tag added to them". It is saying all gathered fabric is a frill, even if it is not an "extension" to clothing, which seems contradictory to forum #31933 as well.

SystemXS said:
Wait, I thought we were aliasing ruffles and frills because they were the same thing. I'll continue this post assuming you meant they're technically gathered dresses.

Yes. I used ruffles to follow the wording used in forum #31933.

SystemXS said:
First of all, I'm not it's what you meant, but I'd like to clear up I didn't mean to make a distinction between inside/outside.

What I meant was that since the ruffles/gathers are going under the skirt, you can assume they belong to a secondary layer. But at this point all of us have a different reading of this image, and it's making less sense each time I look at it.

SystemXS said:
(rest of the post)

Thanks you for detailing and clarifying your tagging logic.

SystemXS said:
Put very simply, I think I've tried to add a bit of a technical layer to forum #31933's more "on feel" approach.

Funny because I was thinking the opposite, as Bapabooiee's approch consists in identifying the nature of the object while yours focuses on its effect. But I see where you're coming from.

SystemXS said:
Either way, I can not see the opposite "all posts with gathers will also have a frills tag added to them". It is saying all gathered fabric is a frill, even if it is not an "extension" to clothing, which seems contradictory to forum #31933 as well.

No matter how I look at it I keep thinking a frills tag that includes gathers is far more important to have than a trim tag.
I would support trim being added manually when posts are tagged frills -gathers, but frills is so huge it's just not gonna happen.

Come to think of it, it's doable if we use one more tag.
- frills renamed ruffles,
- gathers renamed large_ruffles (implying ruffles),
- frilled_* renamed ruffled_* (implying ruffles),
- we add a new tag called small_ruffles or ruffle-trimmed that implies both trim and ruffles.
This way ruffled_* works indiscriminately for both trimming and non-trimming ruffles.

This might be even more overkill than splitting gathered_* from frilled_* like I'm trying to avoid though. At this time of the day I can't tell.

Cyberia-Mix said:
What I meant was that since the ruffles/gathers are going under the skirt, you can assume they belong to a secondary layer.

Thanks you for detailing and clarifying your tagging logic.

Funny because I was thinking the opposite, as Bapabooiee's approch consists in identifying the nature of the object while yours focuses on its effect. But I see where you're coming from.

Maybe I simplified the "technical" part too much. What I meant was that, to me, this thread looked like it mostly agreed with forum #31933, but was looking for a more clear-cut base to work on whilst sticking close to the "dictionary definitions", and clearing up some of the related tags. I've tried to do so by trying to work out a system with said definitions that fits danbooru and the points raised in the thread(s).

Looking at my post again I've mostly elaborated on the "used as if" clause, which is really just there to help with exactly these ambiguous cases. I'm pretty much saying I'd consider secondary layers and such a trim, if all they do is look like they're supposed to belong to the "main layer" as opposed to a different piece of clothing. I believe this ties in best with trim's actual definition of being fancy extensions/decoration to clothing, and is separate from clothing gathering large parts of its main body, as in post #972719 or post #576395 for example.

Anyway, my view on this thread:
We all agree clothing can be gathered.
And we agree that when this gathering is a trim, it is called frills, which is synonymous with ruffles, and subdivided into frilled_clothingtype.
Now we'd like to tag gathering that isn't a trim, but more integral to the clothing. We've decided on gathers, which can then also be subdivided into gathered_clothingtype.

There are 3 problems still standing, with proposed solutions:

• Frills being used by many as an umbrella tag for anything "fancy" on clothing. Be it lace trims, fringes, ruffles, particularly fancy strips or buttons, embroidery, ...
• Solution: trim
• Since both gathers and frills look similar, and can be ambiguous, we didn't want to confuse people searching for just the "gathered look".
• Solution: Use gathers for the look, implied by both gathered_* and frills.
• The "old" use of gathers can be found through gathers -frills to some extent, though this has its problems too.
• They could be somewhat lessened by a gathered_clothing/integral_gather/... tag in contrast to frills (or making a new tag instead of using gathers in the solution above), but again more tags and confusion.
• When is gathering a trim, when is it not? (i.e. "Do I tag this frills or gathered?")
• Solution: As said everywhere, can be very ambiguous, though in most cases it's pretty obvious. The definitions are there, I've suggested a way to define some possibly borderline cases, and if all else fails, tagging both still works.

Alternatively:
The original problem was the confusion between ruffles and frills, which has been solved by alias.
All that's missing is a separate tag for gathered, non-trimmed things, and potentially an umbrella tag for fancy decorations.

See also: forum #63961 (pretty sure he meant frills instead of fringe)

managed moving ruffles to frills and/or gathers manually, and attempted cleaning some along the process. but i fear some maybe left. a little final push from those with unrestricted access is greatly appreciated. if we are going to trust the tag count at ruffles loli there may be at least 5 left.

along the way, i encountered some posts (from ruffles) that i have a little confidence in tagging.

post #526476 - i found out it was called ruff, an elizabethan era fashion neckpiece. do we need to add frills and gathers too?

post #722492 - the triangular handkerchief-like device on the man's neck and the extensions at the end of their sleeves, what are those?

post #858275 and post #920701 - are these different from frilled bikinis and if there's a need to add gathers too?

post #925591 - the thing under the wide collar is a lace, right?

post #942757 - can the neck device be tagged as ruff, frills or gathers?

post #997796 - those things around the girl's wrists and on top on her skirt. many of elise lutas' attire.

any thoughts are welcome and may be helpful in clearing up some things.thanks.

EDIT: found out that there's a neck_ruff tag.

bumping. i reviewed the discussion and it seems everyone at least agreed on the following:

alias ruffles -> frills (the direction can also go either way)
implicate gathers -> frills

if i missed anything important, please correct me. thanks.

and echoing Cyberia-Mix's post:

Cyberia-Mix said:
jxh, just in case, please remember to move ruffles to gathers before aliasing ruffles to frills.

Holy cow - look what I miss when I'm not reading the forum.

I think the old expression "A picture is worth a thousand words" would be appropriate here!... Basically, if we could update that terminology flow chart to include some concise thumbnails, that would kick butt. Then pin the link to said image at the front of the forum...

ghostrigger said: alias ruffles -> frills
implicate gathers -> frills

Did this.

ghostrigger said:
implicate gathers -> frills

frills are gathers trimmed on clothing
gathers is used for either:
a) non-trimmed gathers/"integral frill"

Shinjidude said in forum #63973
I am saying to keep gathers separate as the equivalent of your frills_(integral). By the definition of "frills" I am most used to, the word wouldn't apply in that case at all. "Ruffles" (seperated from "gathers") in this scenerio then would be just ruffled edging on fabric (not as part of the main body of the garment).

Cyberia-Mix said in forum #63985, with [notes] by me:
So, if I get you right:
- old ruffles becomes gathers (new tag)
- old frills becomes new ruffles [currently aliased as should be]
- new frills is now an umbrella consisting of new ruffles (+ lace?) + fringe but not gathers ["trim" is now used for this, also no lace. one can also manually add it to anything that qualifies as a trim, it is not solely an umbrella for ruffles and fringe]

b) umbrella tag for the "corrugated" look (like so, due to the rest of forum #63985)

Depending on what solution we go with.
In the latter case, frills can imply gathers. In neither case however should gathers imply frills (as is now the case).

Shinjidude said in forum #63961 (edited to use our current terms):
Secondly the definition you are trying to follow defined "frills" as a unessential extension to fabric. Saying that a gather is an "integrated" frill despite the fact that it actually is a characteristic of the body of the garment defies this definition. You are saying all gathered fabrics (including those that aren't extensions) are extensions.

(note: he used fringe instead of frills, but no one had mentioned that, he also used "fringe_(integral)" where "frills_(integral)" was the only such tag proposed, and used frills_(integral) in later posts. I'm sure he meant frills. Correct me if I'm wrong.)

SystemXS said:
In neither case however should gathers imply frills (as is now the case).

i hope i didn't misunderstand the discussion in this thread.

about implicating gathers -> frills

• Another solution would be to have ruffles[**] implicating frills (Cyberia-Mix)
• [**] Cyberia-Mix used the term frills_(integral) as the new/alternate name for those previously tagged as ruffles, which is gathers now after the alias
• I agree that it's counterintuitive to have frills and ruffles apart when they're synonymous. aliasing ruffles -> frills, implicating frills_(integral) -> frills (Cyberia-Mix)
• implicate ruffles [***]... to frills to enforce it as a super-set (Shinjidude)
• [***] Shinjidude alternatively used gathers to refer to ruffles. i hope i got this one right
• keep gathers separate as the equivalent of your frills_(integral) (Shinjidude)
• we actually settled to use gathers
• gathers could be a better name than frills_(integral) though (Cyberia-Mix)
• making a gathers tag and implicating it to frills could be an acceptabe and simple solution (MyrMindservant)
• implicate gathers to frills, right? This sounds fine to me. (MyrMindservant)
• If there are no more disagreements then yes. (Cyberia-Mix)
• i concur too. (ghostrigger)
• I have my doubts about this due to distinctions mentioned in earlier posts, -1. (SystemXS)
• Personally I basically see this the same as very_long_hair and long_hair. When looking for long_hair (frills/ruffles) it's likely that by default you want very_long_hair (gathers) included in the results. (Cyberia-Mix)
• I agree with Cyberia-Mix about implicating gathers to frills. Not the other way around. If we go with gathers -> frills implication, then there are no need to make new gathered_* tag, we can use frilled_* for that (MyrMindservant)

thank you everyone, after more than 2 years of discussion this thread finally bore fruit!

EDIT: i'll try to compile all the definitions that appeared in this thread and the old 2 other threads before updating the wikis involved.

There's the problem I think. Gathers are not integral frills, frills are "external" gathers.
I think it's a misconception that came from that old frills_(integral) name. (which in turn came from seeing ruffles and frills separately)

Gathers is the super-set of frills. Frills are a type of gather. (those that are trimmed on, rather than part of (integral to) the "base" clothing layer)

• Personally I basically see this the same as very_long_hair and long_hair. When looking for long_hair (frills/ruffles) it's likely that by default you want very_long_hair (gathers) included in the results. (Cyberia-Mix)

I think that analogy(?) makes things confusing.
In this case, very_long_hair would be a type of long hair, and thus the subset. (hair that is extremely long)
Meaning long_hair is gathers, very_long_hair is frills.
So one makes frills imply gathers, so that when you search gathers (long hair) you also find frills (very long hair), but not the other way around.

implication: absurdres -> highres

• if you searched highres, absurdres posts will also be included. if you like absurdres only, then absurdres search will yield a lesser result. the lesser result posts are tagged both absurdres and highres

implication: very_long_hair -> long_hair

• if you searched long_hair, very_long_hair posts will also be included. if you like really long hair only, very_long_hair will yield a lesser result. the lesser result posts are tagged both very_long_hair and long_hair

in cases like these, i'll refrain from using set and subset. clearly, highres and long_hair are not at the top of the hierarchy. the implication, i guess, is just a measure to inform the searcher that there's another level/step up in refining the search result since the base tags like highres and long_hair are more accessible.

same for implication: gathers -> frills

btw, the use of a super tag is still debatable and there's no general consensus.

?tag? as a catch-all for any decorative embellishment

• And frills would cover any of these[~] (Shinjidude)
• [~] these refer to ruffles (gathers now), fringe, lace
• this is where i think why Shinjidude is against the alias ruffles -> frills way back in the older thread. however, the old ruffles is gathers now. i hope i interpreted this correctly.
• I would use trim for the catch-all tag indicating any decorative edgewear (freefunctor)
• Implicate frills, gathers, lace-trimmed_X, and fringe to trim. (freefunctor, Cyberia-Mix)
• How about we abandon the idea of grand catch-all tag (MyrMindservant)
• As I've already said, I don't think that the umbrella tag is needed (MyrMindservant)
• The creation of trim umbrella tag is arguable (MyrMindservant)

EDIT: added personal opinion.