Implicating shirt_lift → clothed
Link to implication

Reason:

This tag can't apply to nude characters. Therefore, someone must be wearing something.

Same goes for most other <clothing>_lift tags, including skirt_lift and dress_lift.

Genjar said:
Implicating shirt_lift &rarr; clothed
Link to implication

Reason:

This tag can't apply to nude characters. Therefore, someone must be wearing something.

Same goes for most other <clothing>_lift tags, including skirt_lift and dress_lift.

I'd almost rather the implication be to clothing, rather than clothed (which in itself implies clothing ), as the act of lifting someone's garment implies them looking, well, less clothed than they started out ;>

Still, either way works well enough.

post #718917

Would you tag something like this with clothed? Technically it is, but it doesn't seem like the kind of thing people will be looking for when searching clothed.

If that kinda thing is generally tagged with clothed, then the alias would make sense.

Tuvalu said:
Would you tag something like this with clothed? Technically it is, but it doesn't seem like the kind of thing people will be looking for when searching clothed.

Skimpy is already implicated to clothed, as are bottomless and topless, so that doesn't differ much from what's already tagged as clothed. post #721833, for instance.

Under the current usage, clothed is tagged whenever a character is wearing anything. Which isn't of much use by itself (except to the users who are tag scripting missing nudes, etc), the subtags are more useful for searching.

Genjar said:
Skimpy is already implicated to clothed, as are bottomless and topless, so that doesn't differ much from what's already tagged as clothed. post #721833, for instance.

Under the current usage, clothed is tagged whenever a character is wearing anything. Which isn't of much use by itself (except to the users who are tag scripting missing nudes, etc), the subtags are more useful for searching.

Then sure, +1 to the implication.

Approved