Posted under General
This tag: no_underwear
Is this really necessary? Seems to be it could simply be covered by the naked_* tag
The * stands for the corresponding attir (sweater, apron, shirt, overall etc.).
At first sight it only creates more uneccessary tags with even more tag gardening.
Why do we need no_underwear when we have no_panties?
fossilnix said:
Why do we need no_underwear when we have no_panties?
Not all underwear is panties, I reckon.
I guess that this tag is used when the does not were a bra/bandeau/negligee etc. and panties/bloomers blabla.
But that is the exact same same definition as naked sweater, naked overall blabla.
So two ways:
Let everything under naked_attire imply no underwear (see also nearly_naked_apron which shows a bra or a panty) or
Nuke the no_underwear tag completely.
Having naked_* tags imply no_underwear sounds redundant to me so I'm in favor for nuking it since the tag sounds like a combination of no_panties and no_bra.
And I always thought the no_bra/panties tag was not to be used together with the naked_* tags since the naked_* tags already state that they aren't wearing anything else.
Updated
Should we remove no panties and no bra from naked_* posts? The naked sweater tag might benefit from such tags but naked cape and naked shirt are always supposed to be lingerie free.
Edit: Should have been naked shirt. My bad.
Updated
ion288 said:
Should we remove no panties and no bra from naked_* posts? The naked sweater tag might benefit from such tags but naked cape and naked sweater are always supposed to be lingerie free.
This. It would be nice to have some clarification, I don't want to remove tags when I shouldn't so it looks like I'm vandalizing.
Also with the corresponding naked_* tag. I think differentiating between genders would only cause a more dense tagging forest that is already pretty overgrown^^.
ion288 said:
Should we remove no panties and no bra from naked_* posts? The naked sweater tag might benefit from such tags but naked cape and naked shirt are always supposed to be lingerie free.
Edit: Should have been naked shirt. My bad.
no_* tags should really be tagged on naked_* posts. Except when no_panties is replaced by
bottomless in naked_shirt (together with no_pants if you can't see the (non)existing underwear),
or nude in naked_cape,
or maybe non-clothes such as naked_towel, naked_ribbon where wearing panties isn't expected anyway.
Users searching for no_panties no_bra will want to find all posts in which both of these tags visibly apply.
You cannot simply search for "all images tagged naked_*" with naked_* (it only searches the most populated tags)
And even if that worked, we'd be forced to create naked_* for every single obscure article of clothing that is already covered by no panties and no bra.
Updated
S1eth said:
no_* tags should really be tagged on naked_* posts. Except when no_panties is replaced by
bottomless in naked_shirt (together with no_pants if you can't see the (non)existing underwear),
or nude in naked_cape,
or maybe non-clothes such as naked_towel, naked_ribbon where wearing panties isn't expected anyway.Users searching for no_panties no_bra will want to find all posts in which both of these tags visibly apply.
You cannot simply search for "all images tagged naked_*" with naked_* (it only searches the most populated tags)
And even if that worked, we'd be forced to create naked_* for every single obscure article of clothing that is already covered by no panties and no bra.
The second part makes for a compelling argument, I never thought that far to be honest. I have always tagged pictures which don't have a naked_* tag fitting with no panties and no bra or bottomless/topless, whichever fits the image but I'll keep it in mind in the future.
I agree with S1eth on this.
While I do want more naked* tags I suppose having a no_panties tag doesnt hurt.
The no underwear tag on the other hand is almost completely redundant as its wiki specifies it to apply to lower-body underwear only which is covered by the no_panties tag. I say almost as we do have a number of underpants less males such as post #2616746. We should probably think of a tag for them but no underwear is to general. No boxers? No briefs?
There is a veritable flood of virgin killer sweater posts which are all taged no panties, no bra, no underwear and naked sweater regardless if this is visibly true or not. I could use some help with the gardening of these.
ion288 said:
While I do want more naked* tags I suppose having a no_panties tag doesnt hurt.
The no underwear tag on the other hand is almost completely redundant as its wiki specifies it to apply to lower-body underwear only which is covered by the no_panties tag. I say almost as we do have a number of underpants less males such as post #2616746. We should probably think of a tag for them but no underwear is to general. No boxers? No briefs?
I was wondering the same thing. What about the males because they don't wear panties?
Gonna bump this topic again since there was never any resolution about this tag. I still think it's redundant since there are other tags that can cover it in its present state.
It is redundant; we already have plenty of tags to cover everything no underwear would, so I'm in favor of not having this tag.
No underwear is a bit tricky in its application. Basically, it would have to be proven that a character had no underwear on either top or bottom.
However, it is awkward that we're using meta-knowledge to know what kind of underwear the character should be using, whether it be panties, bra, sarashi, fundoshi, briefs, boxers, etc.
Would it instead be more beneficial to have a no_top_underwear and no_bottom_underwear tags. That would cover both genders in all scenarios, and it would be easy to remember and tag with no need for background knowledge on a character.
Thoughts?
Updated
I'd rather we keep the no panties and no bra tags both because we have been using them for so long, the name of them is good and because those new tag names just sounds weird to me, no offense.
And for the no underwear tag, the wiki states that it should only be used for lower body underwear which makes it even more redundant than if it would be used for both lower and upper.
BrokenEagle98 said:
Would it instead be more beneficial to have a no_top_underwear and no_bottom_underwear tags.
If we absolutely must have a gender-neutral alternative to no panties, then no underpants would be more sensible -- "underpants" is part of common parlance whereas "bottom underwear" isn't. "Bottom underwear" sounds really contrived and probably not as easy to remember as you're expecting, at least for inexperienced/occasional taggers.
To my knowledge, there hasn't been any confusion over when to use no bra, so I don't understand why this tag would need replacing.
With the above suggestions, we could go...
