Reason:

forum #223926

Figured I put the tags discussed in the above thread into an alias suggestion so that they don't get overlooked. In short, aliasing the naked_* tags to *_only would better match this site's usage of nude and prevent mistagging.

Alias:
naked_apron -> apron_only
naked_towel -> towel_only
naked_scarf -> scarf_only
naked_cape -> cape_only
naked_ribbon -> ribbon_only
naked_tabard -> tabard_only

Sorry for non-standard format... again. Was error messaged again thanks to forum #194288

As long as the relevant articles are implied (eg. towel_only I-> towel), I don't mind one way or the other.

Couldn't they be wearing shoes, hats, or other accessories?

Strikerman said:
Couldn't they be wearing shoes, hats, or other accessories?

It wouldn't be apron_only if they're wearing apron and gloves. The "and gloves" part would invalidate the "only" part of apron_only.

Another possibility is determining which ones to keep and rename them if necessary. Wearing_towel could work for naked_towel/towel_only and wouldn't exclude characters wearing gloves, socks, etc. and you can find many naked_scarf/scarf_only images by searching scarf mostly_nude.

+1. Seems appropriate.

Also the scarf version probably should imply 'mostly_nude' since scarves don't exactly cover much.

BlueDingo said:
As long as the relevant articles are implied (eg. towel_only I-> towel), I don't mind one way or the other.

+1.

Strikerman said:
Couldn't they be wearing shoes, hats, or other accessories?

those *_only tags are meant literally for when the character is wearing only the garment in question; in case of the character be wearing, for example, a cape and a hat, then just add the respective tags.

However, that made me think: when you search for a specific kind of clothing, the overwhelming majority of posts is of it being worn, but that doesn't happen to towel since it isn't clothing at all; consequently, the method that I mentioned above wouldn't work so efficiently in this specific case.
That 'wearing_towel' idea may solve this. This tag could be used to any character wearing a towel and 'towel_only' could be a subset within it.

BlueDingo said:
It wouldn't be apron_only if they're wearing apron and gloves. The "and gloves" part would invalidate the "only" part of apron_only.

Another possibility is determining which ones to keep and rename them if necessary. Wearing_towel could work for naked_towel/towel_only and wouldn't exclude characters wearing gloves, socks, etc. and you can find many naked_scarf/scarf_only images by searching scarf mostly_nude.

I didn't think about how changing them to *_only could also change the usage of the tags. I had thought naked_* tags didn't exclude characters wearing hats, shoes, gloves, etc, so long as they were still nude (or in this case, mostly_nude). But the wording of *_only implies that the character is only wearing one thing.

This specificity could potentially be good and bad. Good because *_only tags would have a simple and clear definition, and hence leave little room in the way for mistagging. Bad because the restrictiveness of *_only tags would exclude a lot of other posts that could otherwise fall under naked_* tags, including some posts that currently have naked_* tags:

Using wearing_* could be a good alternative for some stuff like wearing_towel, but I don't see it working as well for wearing_apron and wearing_scarf. Could something like bare_* work? It isn't restricted to characters wearing only one item, the wording implies a lack of clothing, and it avoids the improper usage of nude.

Update: The tag naked_ribbon got nuked, so that tag is now irrelevant. There's also several new naked_* tags. Not sure where things are going with the discussion for *_only and possible alternatives, but I figured I keep the format the same for the sake of simplicity.

Alias:

naked_apron -> apron_only
naked_towel -> towel_only
naked_scarf -> scarf_only
naked_cape -> cape_only
naked_ribbon -> ribbon_only
naked_tabard -> tabard_only

naked_boa -> boa_only
naked_collar -> collar_only
naked_hat -> hat_only
naked_glasses -> glasses_only

D.D.M. said:

naked_collar -> collar_only
naked_glasses -> glasses_only

-1. The others objects provide enough covering to be considered clothing (or at least treated similarly), so making sense to register their presence while other clothing are absent; however the same can't be said about those two.
Additionally if we create a '*_only' tag for every medium-small accessory (what is only one step ahead those suggestions), then we will have many more useless tags.

D.D.M. said:

naked_tabard -> tabard_only

-1. Tabard is a much more complete garment in comparation to the others. Having a 'tabard_only' tag would be the same as having a 'vest_only' tag for example; it is basically pointless.

O16 said:
-1. The others objects provide enough covering to be considered clothing (or at least treated similarly), so making sense to register their presence while other clothing are absent; however the same can't be said about those two.
Additionally if we create a '*_only' tag for every medium-small accessory (what is only one step ahead those suggestions), then we will have many more useless tags.

They may not provide much covering or be considered clothing, but I think their prevalence in posts (along with being a more distinct subset of nude or mostly_nude) is enough to warrant the naked_glasses and naked_collar tags. As for other accessories, we the users can determine whether or not they're worth keeping as they appear.

O16 said:
-1. Tabard is a much more complete garment in comparation to the others. Having a 'tabard_only' tag would be the same as having a 'vest_only' tag for example; it is basically pointless.

I agree with this one. I didn't wanna do anything to the naked_tabard tag for a while, but with the lack of posts to tag it with and the amount of covering a tabard provides makes it seem kinda pointless (kinda like tagging a post with naked_toga, even though a toga is a complete set of clothing itself). Plus it's only had 2 posts for the entire time I've been aware of the tag.