What is the point of having both clothed and nude tags? You are either one or the other. For everything in between there are tags like skimpy and half_dressed, but those are all implicated to clothed anyways. I guess the only outlier is partially_clothed, which I'm actually surprised hasn't been implicated to clothed yet. Is this intentional or an oversight? Thoughts?

Personally, I'm of the minority opinion that "both tag" situations are fine. It's more intuitive to search for a positive tag than a negative tag. Searching for -clothed to find nude images is not as natural as searching for nude to find nude images.

I think its actually fine to keep both tags, it reminds me a lot of the no_sound to invalid_tag debate, both tags are widely used and there are probably a lot of people that think that both tags are useful.

But let's wait to see more opinions.

You can easily have both situations in one picture and -clothing doesn't work that well because even if they were tagged a pair of panties implies clothing but they can be on the ground, in a drawer, etc.

We would have to redo the tag system if we disabled clothed because a lot of tags (half-dressed, etc.) are implied to it (or...well they should be, see section below). I'm not sure that it would be worth disabling nude since that is often used for safe pictures, and there really isn't much to replace it.

Edit: Added a few forum links.

Yeah, as usual everything I would say has been said. Although i totally see your point, I think both are often searched for, nothing is hurt by keeping both, and it would possibly require a bit of work to get rid of one of them, so why bother?

half-dressed -> partially_clothed
skimpy -> partially_clothed (implies clothed right now) - Potentially a bad implication, but worth mentioning

Against.
Those have different usage: skimpy is for skimpy clothing that's (usually) worn normally, and partially_clothed is for clothing that's moved or pulled aside (but still worn) so that the parts that are normally covered are visible. And half-dressed is for bottomless/topless, which is also distinct from partially_clothed.

Skimpy:
post #187151 post #434923

Partially_clothed:
post #464343 post #534890

Half-dressed:
post #257600 post #332317

fully_dressed -> clothed

Also against the alias.
We need some kind of fully_clothed tag. Since clothed is tagged (and implicated) whenever a character is wearing anything, no matter how partial.

We don't currently have a tag for characters that are dressed in normal (non-skimpy) outfits. So I suggest unaliasing fully_clothed from clothed, then implicating it instead.

Genjar said:
Against.
Those have different usage: skimpy is for skimpy clothing that's (usually) worn normally, and partially_clothed is for clothing that's moved or pulled aside (but still worn) so that the parts that are normally covered are visible. And half-dressed is for bottomless/topless, which is also distinct from partially_clothed.

I was mostly against it tbh, though I wasn't aware that that was what partially_clothed was for. I think I would have tried a tag name like partially_undressed before thinking of that (though this one is probably more awkward). I'm also surprised that there aren't any panties_down-type tags which imply partially_clothed (not necessarily suggesting this tag, I just mean the type of tag).

Genjar said:

fully_dressed -> clothed

Also against the alias.
We need some kind of fully_clothed tag. Since clothed is tagged (and implicated) whenever a character is wearing anything, no matter how partial.

We don't currently have a tag for characters that are dressed in normal (non-skimpy) outfits. So I suggest unaliasing fully_clothed from clothed, then implicating it instead.

Well...It would definitely be a huge project. There's ~109000 under clothing and ~54000 (about half) under clothed, and I guarantee that most of those pieces of clothing aren't just sitting on the ground. There's also a huge chunk of tags that don't have any clothing tags, but probably should.

Also, obviously fully_dressed should be aliased to fully_clothed (or vice versa).

parasprite said:
I was mostly against it tbh, though I wasn't aware that that was what partially_clothed was for. I think I would have tried a tag name like partially_undressed before thinking of that (though this one is probably more awkward).

Yeah, it might not be the most obvious name for the tag, especially when it's so easy to confuse with half-dressed. Without already knowing the tag name, I probably would've tried looking for something like clothes_aside when searching for that.

I'm also surprised that there aren't any panties_down-type tags which imply partially_clothed (not necessarily suggesting this tag, I just mean the type of tag).

I've tried suggesting those a few times, but the discussions tend to die before any conclusion is reached. Likely partly because of the reason that you mentioned later: there's so many clothing-related posts and tags, and nobody feels like tackling such a massive project.

Open_shirt is one of the tags that could be implicated to partially_clothed. And it might even be possible to implicate undressing to it. Since if the post can be tagged as undressing, clothes should be partially removed..

Edit: Another reason why those get mixed up often is because partly_undressed and partially_dressed are aliased to half-dressed. I think those should be aliased to partially_clothed instead.

+1 for undressing -> partially_clothed at least. I'd imagine that would cover the bulk of those types of posts anyways. This is all assuming it's tagged properly...but I have no reason to believe that partially_clothed has much of a better chance of being squeaky clean.

gonna use my necromancer powers to ask this:

any word on partially_nude?

Knotty_Curls said:
gonna use my necromancer powers to ask this:

any word on partially_nude?

Alias to partially_clothed?

good job team.

let's go home.

parasprite said:
You can easily have both situations in one picture and -clothing doesn't work that well because even if they were tagged a pair of panties implies clothing but they can be on the ground, in a drawer, etc.

I'd like to point out I created discarded_clothing for those cases.

FatherOfGray said:
What is the point of having both clothed and nude tags? You are either one or the other.

In group images, such as some of those in pokephilia as an example, the human is clothed and the Pokémon is nude.

GameManiac said:
In group images, such as some of those in pokephilia as an example, the human is clothed and the Pokémon is nude.

Personally, I don't tag characters that are not normally wearing clothes as nude (e.g. most pokemon and digimon, ferals...)

Circeus said:
Personally, I don't tag characters that are not normally wearing clothes as nude (e.g. most pokemon and digimon, ferals...)

I do. It's just one of those things that I do.

Circeus said:
Personally, I don't tag characters that are not normally wearing clothes as nude (e.g. most pokemon and digimon, ferals...)

GameManiac's point stands, even if he could have picked a better example. Any given character is either clothed, nude, or half-nude...but a lot of images have multiple characters. clothed nude should suffice to demonstrate that you can't say "you're either one or the other, so we can get rid of one of the tags", even if it was a dichotomy (which it isn't, what with topless/bottomless/partially_clothed).

Snowy said:
GameManiac's point stands, even if he could have picked a better example. Any given character is either clothed, nude, or half-nude...but a lot of images have multiple characters. clothed nude should suffice to demonstrate that you can't say "you're either one or the other, so we can get rid of one of the tags", even if it was a dichotomy (which it isn't, what with topless/bottomless/partially_clothed).

That was the first example I had pop up in my head, and I went with it. And what do you mean by "could have picked a better example"? I'm asking for curiosity's sake, not out of offense.

And these sort of tagging projects are what I enjoy doing. Genjar might've lost the will to go on, but not me. Not as long as I can find something that needs tagging or clarifying.

Whether or not "nude" should be applied to normally-clothesless characters (ferals, *mons, etc) is an interesting question. I don't know if it's settled. Using an example with at least one nude character that would normally wear clothes would have avoided that pitfall. Concrete examples (e.g. post #406828) would probably be better than categories, since categories are likely to either have a lot of images that don't fit or include characters that would usually be nude.

Snowy said:
Whether or not "nude" should be applied to normally-clothesless characters (ferals, *mons, etc) is an interesting question.

It would be completely necessary and/or worthwhile in tagging as such, for those that are highly specific with their searches.

It's the difference between seeing this post #712936, and seeing this post #752758.