Duplicate Keywords - List #22 (Proposals for Permanent Merger and Auto-Conversion) (nudity keywords pt. 1)

@gary_krause_dsb3tl1xamjcb​ Thanks for sharing your thoughts, which are very helpful.

I should point out here that my goal is to only merge true duplicates. So, for example, "skinny-dipping" as a keyword is not a duplicate of keywords describing a type of person who is swimming nude. But your comment did help me realize that "woman-goes-skinny-dipping" is a duplicate of the other keywords I had already listed, so I added this one there, to be merged into "woman-swims-nude." And I also added a new entry on the list that would ultimately be merged into "man-swims-nude."

On the one hand I tend to agree with your thoughts on the "full-frontal" and "frontal" keywords (that they are either duplicates/synonyms or should be treated as such). But on the other hand, is "female-frontal-nudity" always the same thing as "female-full-frontal-nudity?" I don't know that these are truly the same thing. Perhaps "frontal nudity" could be either the upper half of a woman's body or the lower half, or both. Users seem to have treated these as two distinct keywords that do not completely overlap. My feeling is they should be kept separate for now.

female-frontal-nudity (13235 titles)

female-full-frontal-nudity (12379 titles)

But that did help me realize that this list only includes the "full-frontal" keywords and not the "frontal" keywords. I will look into adding some new entries to the list.  [Edit: I reviewed the list and I don't see any need to add anything involving just the "frontal" keywords, since my rule of thumb is to only ask for mergers when duplicate keywords or keyword combinations exceed 49 titles.]

Finally, the keywords in my list involve "bare-chested-man," not "bare-chested-male," which are not necessarily the same thing. But I do agree with your comments that all of these keywords in general are way overused. I often roll my eyes when I see how popular "bare-chested-male" is as a keyword. Keywords are supposed to be about important plot points. It seems that the keywords have been used over the years by a few contributors to promote their own fetishes.

Well, 'topless' seems to cover the situations where it's only the upper half. I'm not sure I've ever heard the term "frontal nudity" applied in cases where nothing below the waist is involved.

Looks like the "frontal" vs. "full-frontal" topic has been previously discussed on this message board. Nobody seems to agree on the outcome, though.

female-frontal-nudity almost always refers to topless nudity. It has the same meaning of the keywords: topless-nudity, and bare-breasts.

@abdurahman​ 

On a future list I will include a proposal to merge "bare-breasts" and "bare-breast" into "female-topless-nudity." 

There is not an existing keyword for "topless-nudity."

I am still not convinced that any merger is needed for "female-frontal-nudity." That keyword can mean different things to different people in different contexts. 

@scgary66​ 

Should the keyword "male-full-frontal-nudity" be merged into "male-frontal-nudity?"

male-full-frontal-nudity (9732 titles)  -->  male-frontal-nudity (12673 titles)

@abdurahman @Pencho15 

Same question for you: should the keyword "male-full-frontal-nudity" be merged into "male-frontal-nudity?"

male-full-frontal-nudity (9732 titles)  -->  male-frontal-nudity (12673 titles)

@keyword_expert​ I would say not necessarily.

With male (and female) full frontal nudity I understand that you see absolutely all, including the genitals, with no censorship of any kind. It can be explicit or not, but you see all.

With frontal nudity (both male and female) I understand that the character is completely naked, and shown in screen as such, but something or someone covers the genitals, making it a non explicit nude.

Some examples I can think about right now. In the Robert Downey Jr. first Sherlock Holmes film, he is handcuffed to a bed by Rachel McAdmas, who leaves him completely naked. but there is a cushion covering him so while the character is completely nude, we don't actually see the full nudity.

One Austin Powers film (the first one if I remember right) also has Mike Myers walking completely naked in a scene, but it is a comedy scene that makes use of a lot of elements to cover his genitals (often with tongue in cheek jokes like Elizabeth Hurley eating a sausage that makes it appear as oral sex).

Another one I remembered while writing, there is an episode in The Simpsons where Homer and Marge discober they get aroused by having sex in public places, and they eventually have to run naked around Springfield after almost getting discovered. there is a moment where both of them are shown covered with some garden ornaments. So there we also have male and female frontal nudity, but not a full naked frontal nude as both their genitals and her breasts are not shown.

@Pencho15​ 

Well, there are a few keywords like this. Do these "cover" your examples (no pun intended)?

It just feels in general like there are still too many "nudity" keywords.

I would probably not support merging "female-full-frontal-nudity" into "female-frontal-nudity."

But I might support merging "male-full-frontal-nudity" into "male-frontal-nudity," especially if others supported that. It just seems to me like there is little difference between these two keywords, and while I hear your point about the covered and censored nudity, that is probably best "covered" by other keywords.

@keyword_expert​ 

Yes, one of those keywords should cover what I mean, and I agree there are too many nudity keywords.

However I do believe we have to be careful with this merger. 

It doesn't matter if it is male-full-frontal-nudity or just male-frontal-nudity, but I do feel the keyword should include only scenes where everything is seen (such a keyword is useful both for people interested for any reason in watching the nudity, and also for those wishing to avoid it if it makes them unconfortable).

So any covered nudity should not be there, at least that's my opinion.

@Pencho15​ 

Do you feel like contributors might have previously used "male-frontal-nudity" even for scenes where the genitals are covered, like in the Simpsons example you mentioned? 

If so, then maybe these two keywords should not be merged, after all.  Maybe some contributors have used these two keywords differently.

Just looking at the list of movies on this link, it seems unlikely that these are all complete (uncovered) nudity scenes.

male-frontal-nudity (12673 titles)

@keyword_expert​ I feel there is a possibility, just as I took the keyword that way, many could. And the rest of the censored, strategically covered or blurred nudity keyword, while much more precise and better options, are not popular enought to assume most users considered them before adding the male-frontal-nudity keyword.

None of them has more than 100 entries.

@Pencho15​ Yeah, good points.

@keyword_expert​  @Pencho15​ 

I believe (male-frontal-nudity) generally refers to a man showing an exposed torso, while (male-full-frontal-nudity) refers to a man showing an exposed pubic region/genitals, with or without an exposed torso.

Now, here's the problem, do the people adding these keywords adhere to the difference between the two, or is there a lot of overlap? I personally think there's a lot of overlap.

I suggest, to make the difference between the two more clear, male-frontal-nudity should be merged into male-topless-nudity.

As a matter of fact, I believe shirtless-male, shirtless-man, bare-chested-male, bare-chested-man and male-frontal-nudity should all be merged into (male-topless-nudity).

@abdurahman​ 

"shirtless-male" encompasses both "shirtless-man" and "shirtless-boy." So "shirtless-male" should be kept kept separate from these keywords (but can be be merged into "bare-chested-male." That latter edit is currently pending in my nudity keywords list part #2. 

As for "frontal-nudity," I hear what you are saying about how this may mean only exposure of the chest, but as you also point out, many others are probably interpreting all "frontal" keywords to involve some exposure of the genitalia.

It's just impossible to know whether "frontal," "full-frontal," and "bare-chested" mean the same thing or something different to all people. I wish that were not the case and it were possible to merge more of these keywords that we have already achieved, but I haven't yet seen definitive proof that that can be done.

@keyword_expert​

That's why (male-topless-nudity) is more appropriate, as it is more precise, and doesn't leave room for the wrong interpretation.

As far as the boy vs man thing, the word male encompasses all ages, so I don't see the problem with it replacing any other keyword that references male topless nudity.

Unless we want to be pedants and create nudity keywords which reference every age group, but that would go against the very thing which we're trying to do here, reduce the amounts of overlapping keywords that pretty much mean the same thing, and prevent people from over cluttering the keyword pages.

@abdurahman​ 

It's true that "male-topless-nudity" might be more accurate than "bare-chested-male" (and it would be parallel with "female-topless-nudity"). On the other hand, "bare-chested-male" is much, much more popular on IMDb. It's literally one of the most popular keywords on the site. Personally I have no idea why -- I think it's a dumb keyword that is rarely relevant to the plot and is likely overused about 95% of the time. But whether we like the keyword or not (and again, I dislike it), the community seems to have spoken in favor of "bare-chested-male"). 

As for the differences between "bare-chested-boy" and "-man" and "-male," I try hard not to merge keywords that are not true duplicates. For all we know, the distinction between these keywords could be important to the user(s) who are applying them. Here we are talking about 1,000+ instances of the "-boy" and "-man" keywords. If they were merged, that can't be undone. Occasionally I have erroneously believed that keywords were duplicates when they were not, and the damage done was irreparable. Here is an example. This is one of the the reasons why I am very cautious about merging keywords that are not true duplicates. 

I don't think the popularity of bare-chested-male is a good reason for it to not be merged into male-topless-nudity, unless you believe IMDb will refuse the merger on that bases.

@abdurahman​ A lot of contributors (myself included) do think prevalence/popularity is an important factor. If a keyword has been used in a certain way by the community for years, it is probably for a good reason. And in those cases I am reluctant to tinker with the keywords too much, except when outweighed by other factors. Here is one example where I backed off a proposal to change "pipe-smoking" to "smoking-a-pipe" given the popularity of the former wording.

Then there is this related, and even dumber keyword:

bare-chested-male-bondage (1624 titles)

I regard this as one of the single dumbest keywords on IMDb. Apparently people use this one to indicate all scenes featuring a shirtless man or boy whose hands are bound, for example by rope. Perhaps they don't realize that the word "bondage" has highly specific meanings -- when I see that word I think of either BDSM/S&M fetishes  (after all, that's what the "B" in BDSM stands for), or the bondage of a slave (the word is also a synonym for involuntary servitude). I concede that "bondage" could be interpeted as having the same meaning as "bound," but really that latter word should be used to avoid confusion with the other meanings I mentioned.

But alas, the dumb keyword "bare-chested-male-bondage" is also a very popular keyword on IMDb, so what are we gonna do about it? Probably not much. And converting "bare-chested-male-bondage" to "male-topless-nudity-bondage" would just make it seem even more like a sexual fetish practice, even when there is no such intent in the title itself.

@Pencho15​ Are you sure that all contributors use the "bare-breasts" keyword only for female topless nudity, though? It's a reasonable assumption, and personally I think "bare-breasts" is a dumb keyword, but technically men have breasts too, so I do wonder if anyone has ever used this keyword for male toplessness. 

Another reason why it might not be good to merge these keywords is that "topless" literally means the woman is not wearing a top, while "bare-breasts" could be an exposure of one's breasts from underneath a top, for example if a woman briefly lifts up her top. 

If these keywords were merged, I think they should be merged in favor of "female-topless-nudity," which is simply a better keyword than "bare-breasts." Here is how that might look:

bare-breasts (15046 titles) -->  bare-breast (135 titles)  -->   female-breast-nudity (84 titles)  --> bare-chested-female (7 titles) -->  topless-female (251 titles)  -->  topless-females (128 titles)  -->  topless-female-nudity (7390 titles) --> female-topless-nudity (79 titles)

But with that said, I am not convinced that "bare-breasts" is a true duplicate/synonym for "female-topless-nudity."

@keyword_expert​ I agree female-topless-nudity is better. I don't think the keyword has been used for male topless nudity even if technically they have breasts too. But if you think bare-breasts is a keyword that covers more topics than female-topless-nudity then its ok.

@Pencho15​ Okay, I will leave the list as is. Thanks for weighing in.

@Pencho15​ p.s. Although I said I would leave the list as is, something tells me that it would just be a good idea after all to change "bare-breasts" and "bare-breast" to "female-topless-nudity." I think what I will do is add that to my private list of potential future changes. That way I can include it as part of a new proposed list in the future and get more feedback from the community on whether this is a good idea or a bad idea.

@keyword_expert​ Good, glad to help.

@abdurahman​ "bare-butt" is much more popular though, and everyone understands what it means even if it is informal. Plus, IMDb uses American spellings and variations.