Implicating bottomless → partially_clothed
Link to implication

Reason:

Difficult to be bottomless unless you're wearing something up top.

EDIT: The tag implication bottomless -> partially_clothed (forum #238914) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.

asw_xxx said:
Implicating bottomless → partially_clothed
Link to implication

Reason:

Difficult to be bottomless unless you're wearing something up top.

That's not how partially_clothed works. Partially_clothed is when you're not wearing something completely or properly (eg. open shirt), not when you're not wearing anything on the top or bottom half at all.

post #1105229 <- bottomless
post #1260014 <- partially_clothed
post #107328 <- bottomless and partially_clothed

From the wiki entry of partially_clothed:

Used to indicate a character is wearing clothes that are pulled aside or partially removed. This is not the same as topless or bottomless when said clothes are missing entirely.

I'm guessing the logic is that, especially with furry characters, a bottomless character is still technically fully clothed. For instance Dale's outfit from Rescue Rangers doesn't include pants, yet for that character he is not considered to be partially_clothed.

Dyrone said:
I'm guessing the logic is that, especially with furry characters, a bottomless character is still technically fully clothed. For instance Dale's outfit from Rescue Rangers doesn't include pants, yet for that character he is not considered to be partially_clothed.

I don't think bottomless characters are ever considered fully clothed, even if their default outfit is a bottomless one.

BlueDingo said:
I don't think bottomless characters are ever considered fully clothed, even if their default outfit is a bottomless one.

Oh, well then the distinction being made on the partially_clothed wiki is arbitrary and stupid. What is the justification? Because logically a character who is not wearing pants should be considered partially clothed...if you are not fully clothed then you are partially clothed.

Unless you are saying there is a grey area in which a character should neither be considered fully_clothed nor partially_clothed, but that would, again, require the understanding that some characters' outfits are naturally bottomless.

Dyrone said:
What is the justification?

Searchability. See BLueDingo's post.

Genjar said:
Searchability. See BLueDingo's post.

Great, I can finally fulfill my fetish of a character being completely bottomless and yet being partially disrobed on another part of their body with a simple and effective search of bottomless and partially_clothed.

OH SHIT HOW'D THESE GET IN HERE!? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

post #1287070 post #1283328 post #1280204 post #1276723 post #1271841

And that's only on the first page. Clearly people don't follow the wiki definition of partially_clothed when tagging, they just take it at face value. It isn't a very good tag imo if it relies so heavily on a wiki entry to explain what it's supposed to mean.

Dyrone said:
And that's only on the first page. Clearly people don't follow the wiki definition of partially_clothed when tagging--

That's true for pretty much every tag. I can't think of any that don't need occasional clean-up, and 'five posts on the first page' is mild compared to a lot of other tags. If you see someone mistagging it consistently, report them.

Genjar said:
That's true for pretty much every tag. I can't think of any that don't need occasional clean-up, and 'five posts on the first page' is mild compared to a lot of other tags. If you see someone mistagging it consistently, report them.

Eh, no. Many tags are easy to understand and aren't mistagged often.

Also, there are more than 5 mistags on the first page, I just stopped at 5 because I figured that would be sufficient to show it's a problem, apparently not...

I went back and counted and there are actually 14 mistags. So 28% of the posts on the front page of a partially_clothed bottomless search are mistagged. That's pretty terrible you have to admit, a failure rate that high signals to me there is something fundamentally wrong with the tag considering so many people are misinterpreting it.

Dyrone said:
Eh, no. Many tags are easy to understand and aren't mistagged often.

Also, there are more than 5 mistags on the first page, I just stopped at 5 because I figured that would be sufficient to show it's a problem, apparently not...

I went back and counted and there are actually 14 mistags. So 28% of the posts on the front page of a partially_clothed bottomless search are mistagged. That's pretty terrible you have to admit, a failure rate that high signals to me there is something fundamentally wrong with the tag considering so many people are misinterpreting it.

You should've seen how bad it was for piggyback before I cleared it up. The rate was >50% and people still mistag it sometimes. headshot has this problem as well.

I do agree that the term is a bit misleading but what term would you replace it with?

BlueDingo said:
I do agree that the term is a bit misleading but what term would you replace it with?

partially_undressed? clothing_aside? If partially_clothed doesn't mean "clothed on part of the body, but other parts are unclothed" then I think the tag should be changed.

Bottomless and topless used to implicate half-dressed as an umbrella tag, which in turn implicated clothed. These implications were removed, interestingly enough, in favor of implicating bottomless/topless to partially_clothed.

Once the usage (wiki) of partially_clothed was brought up, that suggestion was discarded. Fully_clothed began to see more use.

Anyways, I completely agree with partially_clothed being a bad tag. In the never-ending quest to idiot-proof e621's tagging system, I've been following my own advice:

Clothing_aside sounds far more appropriate. I'm not sure what course of action I'm going to take yet, but rest assured a change has been needed for a while.

Referenced past threads:

• forum #168590
• forum #181615

Knotty_Curls said:
Clothing_aside sounds far more appropriate.

Poor fit for open clothing, especially when considering the wiki entries of the other *_aside tags such as underwear_aside.

For example, character wearing an open shirt and no undershirt is partially_clothed. But tagging it as clothing_aside would be unintuitive.

Many types of wardrobe_malfunction can also leave the character partially_clothed. If parts of the clothing are ripped off, it's not 'clothing_aside'.

It'd also break the fully_clothed/partially_clothed -> clothed naming, although that's less important.

Genjar said:
Poor fit for open clothing, especially when considering the wiki entries of the other *_aside tags such as underwear_aside.

For example, character wearing an open shirt and no undershirt is partially_clothed. But tagging it as clothing_aside would be unintuitive.

Especially since the word aside means "to one side" and many partially_clothed images don't involve clothing going to one side. I doubt it's even possible to have a t-shirt worn to one side.

The tag implication bottomless -> partially_clothed (forum #238914) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.