Aliasing tasteful_nudity → nude
Link to alias

Reason:

Too ambiguous and underused.

Disagree.

It's nice to search for when I'm looking for nude art that's not porn.

I guesses it could be covered by searching nude -sex -masturbation or something, but that doesn't exactly fit the bill ... I dunno, I kinda like the tag, not sure I wanna see it gone.

At least implicate it so that it gets tagged nude. I don't see a problem with the tag in general as long as it gets tagged nude.

I do wonder if replacing it with something like "nonsexual_nudity" might be more universally clear. Since before seeing the comments in this thread about what people use it for, I wasn't sure what the tag was even good for. Using "tasteful" in the tag is euphemistic and could even be taken to mean stuff that's censored creatively or otherwise (which is handled by other tags already). But if the tag were "nonsexual_nudity" then it would be far less ambiguous, it would have a clear identity and I could see how such a tag would be useful in ways that aren't already covered by any other tag.

What do people think about aliasing tasteful_nudity to --> nonsexual_nudity and then implicating that to --> nude?

furrypickle said:
I do wonder if replacing it with something like "nonsexual_nudity" might be more universally clear. Since before seeing the comments in this thread about what people use it for, I wasn't sure what the tag was even good for. Using "tasteful" in the tag is euphemistic and could even be taken to mean stuff that's censored creatively or otherwise (which is handled by other tags already). But if the tag were "nonsexual_nudity" then it would be far less ambiguous, and I could see how such a tag would be useful. What do people think?

I think the kind of people to tag tasteful_nudity would probably know exactly what they were tagging. It implies "artistic nude" in the same way that it is used in non-furry art. Nonsexual_nudity just sounds... unfun.

Hell... why not use artistic_nude?

parasprite said:Nonsexual_nudity just sounds... unfun.

It is however the least ambiguous option proposed, by far. I cannot bring myself to agree that "the kind of people to tag tasteful_nudity/artistic_nude would probably know exactly what they were tagging". IME that is a line that people dance all over. I've done plenty of 'artistic nudes' myself, I don't have any confidence at all in which should be actually tagged 'artistic', especially when the potential of parody enters the (metaphorical) picture.

nonsexual_nudity > artistic_nude > tasteful_nudity, IMO.

I'm okay with implication instead of alias. Though still I'm not exactly sure what should be tagged with this tag.
Is
post #64592
correctly tagged? If it's aliased to nonsexual_nudity then yeah, but I don't think it's neither artistic nor tasteful.

nonsexual_nudity    artistic_nude    tasteful_nudity  sexytime_nudes
  <----unambiguity ----------------------------- fun ------>

savageorange said:
I cannot bring myself to agree that "the kind of people to tag tasteful_nudity/artistic_nude would probably know exactly what they were tagging"

Oh...here I only meant that it wouldn't take much to define. Whether it would get abused...eh...no idea. However, nonsexual_nudity would apply to a lot of things that would be unrelated to the expected artistic_nude taggings and...well still not add much more than nude.

Come to think of it. I think I'm just going to assume I'm not making much sense since I've been up for 42 hours now and I can't even remember what my point was, if I had one.

parasprite said:
I think the kind of people to tag tasteful_nudity would probably know exactly what they were tagging. It implies "artistic nude" in the same way that it is used in non-furry art. Nonsexual_nudity just sounds... unfun.

Hell... why not use artistic_nude?

I can sympathise with the unfun reaction. But... sometimes the best tags are the least pretty/appealing, but are unashamedly practical instead. So it might still turn out to be the best option.

I think artistic_nude/artistic_nudity would run into problems because calling something "artistic_nude" for a lot of people is going to bring to mind things they associate with classic nude imagery from famous paintings. In other words, literally "artistic nudes". But that's not going to be the same thing as nonsexual_nudity, because many of those classic nude paintings are actually sexual in nature (mythological rapes, suggestive poses with symbolic imagery, etc). Also likely that anything that seems too contemporary or modern would be less likely to get tagged with it because it's not seen "artistic" enough. It would confuse the usage, misinterpreted as meaning the 'art style' of the nude image instead of sexual/nonsexual content and the tag usage would suffer accordingly.

Even if people only imagined a live drawing class as a reference point for what "artistic_nude" meant: most people have never actually attended one and don't realise how non-sexual the environment there usually is. There's a lot of sexual parodies of live drawing class environments with nude models, and those images would easily end up under a tag like "artistic_nude". But not a tag like "nonsexual_nudity". So again, it wouldn't mean the same thing.

And I also agree with savageorange's points about both "tasteful" and "artistic" being terms that aren't used or interpreted consistently enough even in art centric circles.

Though I wanted to add another point that I feel is important: I think ideally the tag we use should be easy to understand (and clearly use) for people without an artist background. Even if it were established that a small community of users with art training could use it consistently without any confusion for nonsexual nudity. I think we'd also need to establish whether or not it is also easy to use for the lay person with no art background whatsoever who just wants to see nude people without sexual poses/acts/gestures involved? The best tags make sense to people from a broad range of backgrounds, making them clear, easy to pick up and to use. So there's that to consider.

+1 for an implication to nude

+1 for aliasing to nonsexual_nudity

I'm in total agreement with FurryPickle, so I don't have anything to really add :P

As usual, you're full of words ;)

furrypickle said:
I can sympathise with the unfun reaction. But... sometimes the best tags are the least pretty/appealing, but are unashamedly practical instead.

IMO for any tagging system that is supposed to actually work and is not tiny, eg. E621's, we need to insist on clarity first. Tags being fun promotes usage, but tags being clear promotes usage that is actually correct -> useful.

And I also agree with savageorange's points about both "tasteful" and "artistic" being terms that aren't used or interpreted consistently enough even in art centric circles.

We might benefit from an addition to help:tags giving examples of how / how not to tag. Tasteful/tasteless is generally a problem adjective because it's subjective -- see eg. nezumi. sexy, horny.. similar problems (which IIRC is why these were aliased to invalid_tag).
color, cardinality( as in '3_toes'), and size are the most trustworthy categories of adjective. Examples of overly specific tags (eg. humanoid_face) or tags that only make sense if when using an inappropriate default (eg. humanoid_pussy).

Not totally sure on that, whether it would come across overly prescriptive or as helpful. I do think at least a few examples would be better than the current none-at-all, though.

EDIT: I see that some examples can be found in a separate page , which is pretty good, but I think the 'don't tag subjectively' etc stuff maybe should be on the main tagging wiki page.

The best tags make sense to people from a broad range of backgrounds, making them clear, easy to pick up and to use. So there's that to consider.

Strongly agree and also want to add that clear, accessible tags will make E621 more accessible to people with English as a second language (less awareness of idioms) as well.

In case it's not completely clear, I am like Tokaido, +1 on both implication of nude and aliasing to nonsexual_nudity

I'm fine with nonsexual_nudity and the implication too.

furrypickle said:
What do people think about aliasing tasteful_nudity to --> nonsexual_nudity and then implicating that to --> nude?

I'm not sure if that'd work.
Tasteful_nudity is currently tagged for images such as:
post #59357 post #105778 post #140347 post #165337 post #381034

Those don't seem nonsexual to me. Just more or less nonexplicit.

Random said:
It's nice to search for when I'm looking for nude art that's not porn.

What exactly are you looking for when you search for that tag? Something like
'nude pose rating:questionable', or 'nude rating:safe', or something else?

I've made the following changes:

• Alias: tasteful_nudity -> nude (denied)
• Implication: tasteful_nudity -> nude (approved)
• Alias: artistic_nude -> tasteful_nudity (approved) - Because we don't really need both and they overlap.

While it isn't perfect in that it doesn't prevent abuse of the tag or it may not be exactly what we want, it doesn't seem to be that much of an issue at this point based on what has been tagged. If in the future the tag seems to be causing problems we can revisit this and maybe then we'll have a better idea of what to do with them.

parasprite said:
If in the future the tag seems to be causing problems we can revisit this and maybe then we'll have a better idea of what to do with them.

It is causing problems.

Firstly, it's getting tagged for posts where the character isn't actually nude.

post #758832 post #139205 post #110017 post #583452

And secondly, 'tasteful nudity' is so subjective that it gets tagged for wide variety of posts.

post #143885 post #160819 post #756748 post #216088

Also, it implies that other types of nudity aren't 'tasteful'. Just a personal opinion, but I find that absurd and overly prudish. Especially on a site like this.

Therefore, I suggest aliasing it away and using tags such as casual_nudity instead.

Genjar said:

Therefore, I suggest aliasing it away and using tags such as casual_nudity instead.

Would aliasing it to that work? (after cleaning it up of course)

parasprite said:
Would aliasing it to that work? (after cleaning it up of course)

It's occasionally tagged for partially clothed characters. But casual_nudity has the same problem, so I suppose that aliasing those wouldn't make it any worse.

But the subjectivity is more problematic. There are a lot of images under tasteful_nudity that I wouldn't consider to be 'casual' ^{_{(post #589220, for instance)[/sup]}. There's a lot of posed nudes, which would fit better under pinup. 'Tasteful' is also hard to define, and tends to vary by culture and age group. It can't really be aliased to either casual_nudity or pinup, because the content is too split between those. And since those already exist, I don't see how tasteful_nudity offers anything that's not already covered. I think the best option would be to sort it out to those two, and then disambiguate it. For example, these would be casual_nudity...:
post #473156 post #815702 post #804345...and these are pinups:
post #381034 post #705620 post #730937}

Genjar said:
It is causing problems.

Firstly, it's getting tagged for posts where the character isn't actually nude.

post #758832 post #139205 post #110017 post #583452

This. So many instances of tasteful_nudity are mistags and you can't quickly sort out which ones do and don't have nudity because every one of them is tagged nude (so tasteful_nudity -nude won't work) and many people don't tag clothing (so tasteful_nudity clothing doesn't work very well).

I interpret tasteful_nudity as "non-sexual nude posing, usually solo", casual_nudity as "non-sexual non-posing nudity" and pinup as "sexually suggestiveness posing, usually solo" with mostly_nude included since they generally don't count as clothed, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over casual_nudity and tasteful_nudity being joined together after a little cleanup (casual_nudity pose should still find tasteful nudity). Either way, the implication to nude needs to be removed to reduce mistags.

-1 to alias. Al it takes is one person searching tasteful_nudity and the resulting alias gives them anything but tasteful.

+1 implication.

kamimatsu said:
-1 to alias. Al it takes is one person searching tasteful_nudity and the resulting alias gives them anything but tasteful.

+1 implication.

It's already implicated and has lead to many mistags since many of them aren't actually nude.

BlueDingo said:
It's already implicated and has lead to many mistags since many of them aren't actually nude.

The most I've found is maybe wearing a belt or a backpack. Clothing accessories that don't necessarily make someone stop being nude.

kamimatsu said:
The most I've found is maybe wearing a belt or a backpack. Clothing accessories that don't necessarily make someone stop being nude.

True, mostly_nude still qualifies (a reason to remove the implication) but some people add it to clothed images and images that qualify as pinups.

post #1024144 post #531478 post #969082

Then there's the images tagged both casual_nudity and tasteful_nudity, since some people either can't tell the difference or think they mean exactly the same thing.

BlueDingo said:
True, mostly_nude still qualifies (a reason to remove the implication) but some people add it to clothed images and images that qualify as pinups.

post #1024144 post #531478 post #969082

Then there's the images tagged both casual_nudity and tasteful_nudity, since some people either can't tell the difference or think they mean exactly the same thing.

The first two are a case of bag tagging and only bag tagging, though I agree with the third. The first because it isn't tasteful. The second because of the general lack of topless males not being considered fully clothed.

kamimatsu said:
The first two are a case of bag tagging and only bag tagging, though I agree with the third. The first because it isn't tasteful. The second because of the general lack of topless males not being considered fully clothed.

The third one doesn't count as tasteful_nudity either because she is topless (wearing underwear counts as clothed) and may be in pinup territory.

BlueDingo said:
The third one doesn't count as tasteful_nudity either because she is topless (wearing underwear counts as clothed) and may be in pinup territory.

It's sort of like that old riddle where a woman had to show up "clothed but naked", and she showed up in a fishnet dress. It's not so much whether there's clothes as much as it's what is being covered.

The whole issue is really people tagging incorrectly despite the obvious definition, not the tag itself. Mistakes can be corrected. Especially since all of us are able to make that correction.

kamimatsu said:
It's sort of like that old riddle where a woman had to show up "clothed but naked", and she showed up in a fishnet dress. It's not so much whether there's clothes as much as it's what is being covered.

Birthday suit.

kamimatsu said:
The whole issue is really people tagging incorrectly despite the obvious definition, not the tag itself. Mistakes can be corrected. Especially since all of us are able to make that correction.

Of course. Obvious mistags can be fixed, provided the mistag isn't being caused by an implication. In this case, images like post #169924 don't contain nude characters (scarf and socks, so mostly_nude) but counts as tasteful nudity and the implication adds nude when that doesn't apply. You can't remove nude because the implication keeps adding it back in.

post #169924 post #388924 post #1129063

BlueDingo said:
Birthday suit.

Of course. Obvious mistags can be fixed, provided the mistag isn't being caused by an implication. In this case, images like post #169924 don't contain nude characters (scarf and socks, so mostly_nude) but counts as tasteful nudity and the implication adds nude when that doesn't apply. You can't remove nude because the implication keeps adding it back in.

post #169924 post #388924 post #1129063

They are still nude. That's where I was going with "clothed but nude".

kamimatsu said:
They are still nude.

Not according to the tagging system, they're not. See mostly_nude.

BlueDingo said:
Not according to the tagging system, they're not. See mostly_nude.

Alright then. Guess I was wrong.