Implicating no_underwear → clothed
Link to implication
Reason:
The tag is for when characters are wearing no underwear, but still clothing, so they must still be clothed.
Updated by succ
Topic: Tag Implication: no_underwear -> clothed
Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions
I feel like this might cause the occasional mistag (when it's mistagged itself) but from what's tagged already it seems to be okay.
Updated by anonymous
no_underwear upskirt is tragically undertagged.
8(
Updated by anonymous
+1, no_underwear shouldn't be in use unless the character is clothed.
Related
Updated by anonymous
I'd argue it shouldn't be in use at all. How is no_underwear upskirt any different from -underwear upskirt?
Updated by anonymous
BlueDingo said:
I'd argue it shouldn't be in use at all. How is no_underwear upskirt any different from -underwear upskirt?
just because there's a way of finding practically the same results by using -underwear upskirt instead of upskirt no_underwear it doesn't mean it will have that result in all cases.
how would you find posts such as these without the no_underwear tag?
post #306588 post #429678 post #385505
-underwear pants? that's not going to be helpful because if somebody's wearing pants you're usually not going to see their underwear anyway.
Updated by anonymous