Wiki: nude & exceptions

@S1eth: > Saduharta said: > > Not that I created that...

2013-09-04T04:50:21-04:00

Saduharta said:

Not that I created that tag, but is there a particular reason why it should be purged? I mean, anymore so than naked_sleeves. Or maybe both should simply be purged rather than implied. Just curious.

What would happen if a nude character wears sleeves and a necktie? Would you then tag nude naked_necktie necktie naked_sleeves detached_sleeves? Or do you tag nothing?

A tag like naked_shirt doesn't consider any other accessories that are not designed to cover the torso, so you can have a naked_shirt character wearing gloves, shoes, socks, necktie, etc.
but naked_sleeves, naked_necktie, etc. seem like a lot of tag redundancy to me.

@Saduharta: > S1eth said: > > Where did that come from!? >...

2013-09-04T03:21:52-04:00

S1eth said:

Where did that come from!?
Please, can we just purge that tag. Just search for nude necktie.

Not that I created that tag, but is there a particular reason why it should be purged? I mean, anymore so than naked_sleeves. Or maybe both should simply be purged rather than implied. Just curious.

@S1eth: > naked_necktieWhere did that come from!?...

2013-09-04T02:59:07-04:00

naked_necktie

Where did that come from!?
Please, can we just purge that tag. Just search for nude necktie.

@Saduharta: All right, I changed the wiki around to be a...

2013-09-03T16:09:39-04:00

All right, I changed the wiki around to be a little more comprehensive for now, going by the nude = uncovered torso definition. I may very well be missing some exceptions, so if anyone sees anything missing or incorrect feel free to change it around.

On a separate note, I wasn't sure if it required bringing up a separate thread for this, but I thought here might be appropriate; based on the definitions being as they are, I'd suggest the following implications;

- add naked_paint -> nude alongside the already existing naked_chocolate implication.
- also add naked_necktie -> nude and naked_sleeves -> nude implications, since by definition both cases count as nude anyways. Could get rid of the tags entirely (after all, there are no tags for other nude exceptions such as nude_thighhigh or nude_gloves), but I can see those being legitimate searches.
- Of note, unsure if an implication for nude_scarf would warrant the same treatment; nominally it fits in the same accessories exception, but scarves tend to be more volumous and more often used for convenient_censoring, leading to a possibility of them being considered as covering. I'd leave that up to others opinions.

Edit: as a separate question, should the definition of nude on the torso really include the back? The area between the neck and the top of the buttocks being covered on the back doesn't seem to really be integral to being nude to me; And half the time the area is covered, in female characters, with hair anyways. And certainly long_hair doesn't automatically exclude a character from being nude.

@BCI_Temp: Sounds good to me like that, then. Objection...

2013-09-02T04:30:52-04:00

Sounds good to me like that, then. Objection withdrawn.

(Oh, and no hard feelings about the rank thing. Communicating tone without voice is hard.)

@Saduharta: > BCI_Temp said: > > It didn't come off that...

2013-09-01T16:54:20-04:00

BCI_Temp said:

It didn't come off that way, at all.

My sincere apologies then.

And "no longer on the torso" is a good idea to tack on at the least.

- Clothing that is on a character's person, but isn't being worn. IE; If their clothing is pulled off/aside to such an extent that it is no longer on the torso (from neck to crotch) of the character's body.

@BCI_Temp: > Saduharta said: > > All I meant by that is...

2013-09-01T16:49:37-04:00

Saduharta said:

All I meant by that is that I personally was counting S1eth's quote there as something valid to look into based on that, not that he was more correct or not. And like I said, the definition I gave probably needed to be reworded.

It didn't come off that way, at all.

That aside, I may have misinterpreted your proposed exception. I thought it was a much broader exception than it seems to be on reread. I'd clarify with something like "(i.e. no longer on the torso)," and that's fine.

@Saduharta: All I meant by that is that I personally was...

2013-09-01T16:40:09-04:00

All I meant by that is that I personally was counting S1eth's quote there as something valid to look into based on that, not that he was more correct or not. And like I said, the definition I gave probably needed to be reworded.

In the end, it's like you said with that particular issue being somewhat of a grey area, with certain degrees of removal being counted as "worn" still or not. The original point, in that exception I gave for the wiki example, was that there even IS a degree that an item of clothing can be on a character's person, but be removed to such an extent so as not to be counted as worn anymore, for the purposes of nude/topless/bottomless. I'm just not sure the best way to word that grey-area-exception I suppose.

@NWF_Renim: > Saduharta said: > > S1eth is a higher level...

2013-09-01T15:44:21-04:00

Saduharta said:

S1eth is a higher level user than you, and he's the one who made the exception, so I'll stick with him on that for now. Perhaps it could use a rewording though.

Lets not get in to user ranks unless it's an admin making a decision on the matter.

The bottomless tag does state in the gray area that some of those tags, like panty_pull, only count towards bottomless after a certain degree of removal from the torso (in the gray area it defines it as complete removal from the crotch area). Also skirts with no_panties after having been lifted to the waist or above. As topless is the counterpart of bottomless it would make sense as well that only a certain degree of removal from the torso should count as topless as well, though as to what degree is up for debate. Personally, I would still consider it "worn" in examples like post #193773, as it is still on her upper body and not removed from it. Also I'd still consider the skirt "worn" in not applying the nude tag for things like post #post #571371, just my view on it.

@Saduharta: > BCI_Temp said: > > Don't make an exception...

2013-09-01T14:57:37-04:00

BCI_Temp said:

Don't make an exception for that. Bra lift and bikini lift are not yet topless. They're still "wearing" a top. They just aren't wearing it properly. Same for skirt lift and bottomless.

S1eth is a higher level user than you, and he's the one who made the exception, so I'll stick with him on that for now. Perhaps it could use a rewording though.

S1eth said:

There are cases in which you are not sure if the clothes are actually "worn" (panty_pull, off_shoulder, and in that case you may want to tag both bottomless/topless in combination with nude.

@BCI_Temp: > Saduharta said: > > Exceptions are made for...

2013-09-01T14:51:55-04:00

Saduharta said:

Exceptions are made for the following:
[...]
- Clothing that is on a character's person, but isn't being worn. IE; If their clothing is pulled off/aside to such an extent that it is no longer being used to cover the body.

Don't make an exception for that. Bra lift and bikini lift are not yet topless. They're still "wearing" a top. They just aren't wearing it properly. Same for skirt lift and bottomless.

@Saduharta: Mkay. Anyways, for now, it seems like the wiki...

2013-09-01T14:48:50-04:00

Mkay.

Anyways, for now, it seems like the wiki entry might become something like this;

nude
The state of not wearing any garments.

Exceptions are made for the following:

- Articles designed to accessorize rather than cover. This includes socks, thighhighs, boots, shoes, gloves, hats, belts, ties, ribbons, collars, jewelry, sashes, shoulder pads, and other such items.

- Clothing that is on a character's person, but isn't being worn. IE; If their clothing is pulled off/aside to such an extent that it is no longer being used to cover the body.

- A character "wearing" paint or chocolate or other such substances. Since these do not actually cover the body and aren't really worn, the character in question is still nude.

- Non-garment items being used to cover the body means a character is NOT nude. Instead, those characters should be tagged with "naked_x" where x is the item being used. Naked_Towel would be used for a character using a towel to cover their body, for instance.
------------

And then the current part about monster girls with a mix of human and inhuman parts. I could be missing something, but that at least seems somewhat comprehensive for what's been discussed.

@BCI_Temp: > Saduharta said: > > What my question was...

2013-09-01T14:46:57-04:00

Saduharta said:

What my question was more meant to mean was this; Does the rule saying extremities don't count extend to topless and bottomless? I used the word top when referring to things such as detached sleeves and long gloves only because they're on the upper half of the body, my bad. IE; if a character is wearing jeans and their torso is bare, but their arms are fully covered to the shoulders, are they still topless?

Yes. Bottomless is essentially no pants + no panties. Legwear doesn't count. "Topless" is more about what would be considered a "top" in clothing, with "bottomless" as a parallel. You don't consider elbow gloves or detached sleeves a "top" since it doesn't cover what's important.

I wouldn't mind a completely nude tag or parallel completely topless and completely bottomless tags, but I not volunteering to tag and populate them. :-) I've got my hands full with applying the news tanline tags.

Another note, what counts as covered for the torso then? I assume shirts and bikinis pulled above the breasts interrupt this imaginary line drawn down to check if the torso is bare or not, but what about some of the other upper body things like neckties, sashes, belts, shoulder-pads, or detached collars; Are those exceptions like garters since they're not designed to cover, or is the rule more absolute and garter belts are exceptions unto themselves for no particular reason?

In general, accessories don't count, unless they block a good portion the torso (and thus substitute for more traditional top or bottom wear). A detached collar is nude/topless compatible. So is a necktie. Sashes and belts depend on how they are used. Ask yourself, "Does it make more sense to count this as nude, or does it limit the picture to topless *or* bottomless?" The latter two tags should almost never be used together for the same character.

lady_garegga said:
I think we're going to need a few new tags.

If you haven't done a major retagging effort, I think you drastically underestimate the amount of effort your proposed tag changes would take. You are proposing months of work to little benefit beyond the existing tag schema. You also have to consider "tagging inertia" in the userbase when changing definitions under people. It takes users (especially those not regularly on the forums) a while to learn to use a tag differently.

@Log: slightly renamed the thread because it was...

2013-09-01T14:17:28-04:00

slightly renamed the thread because it was bugging me.

@Saduharta: > Toks said: > > There's also the separate...

2013-09-01T13:55:33-04:00

Toks said:

There's also the separate completely_nude tag proposed for this purpose in topic #8936.

Yeah, I found that thread while searching to see what has been discussed on the Nude tag; But that was never implemented of course, and is sitting at 7 months since any activity. So not sure that tag is going anywhere.

@S1eth; Good to know those clothing items also work with nude, in addition to the clothing items mentioned in the wiki. That was the sort of thing I thought would be good to know.

@S1eth: > Schrobby said: > This also brings up pictures...

2013-09-01T13:17:54-04:00

Schrobby said:
This also brings up pictures with multiple characters where one is nude and the other has *.

You can make this argument for every tag in existence. It's a really bad one.

@Schrobby: > S1eth said: > > I think that if you can...

2013-09-01T13:08:19-04:00

S1eth said:

I think that if you can search for nude + *, a naked_* tag is useless and should not exist.

This also brings up pictures with multiple characters where one is nude and the other has *.

@Toks: > lady_garegga said: > > First, we have...

2013-09-01T12:51:16-04:00

lady_garegga said:

First, we have absolute nudity:
nude should be for full-body nudity. No clothes, except for some body marks or minimal jewelry. If you can see 98% skin and head, it's nude.

There's also the separate completely_nude tag proposed for this purpose in topic #8936.

@S1eth: > lady_garegga said: > Here's a more...

2013-09-01T12:43:41-04:00

lady_garegga said:
Here's a more comprehensive approach we can use, and I think it is more true to the way things are done here.

BCI Temp explained quite well how it is currently handled. What you are proposing is a radical change that would require thousands of tag edits.

naked_shirt covering only back

naked_shirt does not require the shirt to be open. The shirt can cover both the front and back of the torso.

And some new naked_* ones that we should have:

I think that if you can search for nude + *, a naked_* tag is useless and should not exist. This goes especially for naked_sleeves.
naked_chocolate and naked_paint being the exception. They may share the same naming scheme, but unlike the other tags, they are not about wearing a single piece of garment.

@Schrobby: There's also naked_sleeves.

2013-09-01T11:09:09-04:00

There's also naked_sleeves.