Aliasing naked_socks → socks_only
Link to alias

Reason:

/as per https://e621.net/forum/show/244347 Seems reasonable.
Death to poorly translated tags!

Others too!

naked_scarf > scarf_only
naked_towel > towel_only
naked_hat > hat_only
naked_cape > cape_only
naked_glasses > glasses_only
naked_boa > boa_only
naked_towel > towel_only
naked_ribbon > ribbon_only
nude_apron unaliased from naked_apron, then aliased to apron_only

naked_apron > apron_only

Also a few that aren't here but might migrate from other boorus.

naked_gloves > gloves_only
naked_trenchcoat > trenchcoat_only
naked_tape > tape_only
naked_bowtie > bowtie_only

Phew.

EDIT: The tag alias naked_socks -> socks_only (forum #244368) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

+1, since this has received a lot of support in the other threads.

Once done, some of them (such as hat_only) could be implicated to mostly_nude.

+1 support too.

Including the implucations. you might have a problem if someone's wearing a scarf, hat, cape, glasses, boa, and ribbon, but then, they're technically still mostly_nude. :) Just have horrible fashion scene. :)

+1, most definitely!

Though mostly_nude doesn't seem applicable to some of the tags, specifically naked_glasses, and perhaps naked_boa as well. I don't know if either could be considered clothing.

What qualifies as "socks_only" though? What if they're wearing socks and a hat? Is that "socks_only" or "hat_only"? Or is it both? Or neither?

Also how specific are we going to be with the definition of a "sock"...to me when I think of socks I think of these ... but I already know people are going to mess this up and conflate socks with thigh_highs.

Dyrone said:
What qualifies as "socks_only" though? What if they're wearing socks and a hat? Is that "socks_only" or "hat_only"? Or is it both? Or neither?

Neither. Socks_only literally means socks only.

Genjar said:
Neither. Socks_only literally means socks only.

What about a bracelet or a necklace or a wristwatch? those don't seem like articles of clothing to me, and wouldn't conflict with other X_only tags like a hat would, but your rigid definition of "literally socks only" doesn't seem to leave room for them.

Genjar said:
Neither. Socks_only literally means socks only.

I agree. We should use a stricter interpretation of socks_only for the sake of reducing ambiguity when tagging posts, plus mostly_nude is always an option for nearly nude characters wearing several clothing items.

Dyrone said:
What about a bracelet or a necklace or a wristwatch? those don't seem like articles of clothing to me, and wouldn't conflict with other X_only tags like a hat would, but your rigid definition of "literally socks only" doesn't seem to leave room for them.

That's a good point. I'm uncertain about how to treat smaller items like jewelry and tiny accessories. Should these items be treat in the same manner as gloves or shoes, or are they small enough to be considered negligible when adding *_only to a post?

Dyrone said:
What about a bracelet or a necklace or a wristwatch?

If it doesn't count as clothing when tagging nude, it shouldn't count as clothing for these (or any other tag) either.

Genjar said:
Neither. Socks_only literally means socks only.

Well, what if someone's wearing scarf and a pair of gloves? I mean, I think that still would appear to people interested in someone interested in someone JUST wearing socks. I mean, I can't imagine most people would click and go "DAMN! Gloves! there goes my hardon..." ;)

But it is a fair point that 'socks_only" suggests that there is ONLY socks... so maybe there's a variation? Lonely_socks? Lonely_scarf?

Though I think accepting that someone could be wearing socks_only, gloves_only, scarf_only and hat_only could just be a quirk of the tagging system, if we just accept that using any one of the *_only tags (that are applicable here, obviously) indicates that someone is not wearing torso clothing, even if it's not the most... eloquent.

I mean, alternatively we could tag something like "no_torso_clothes" but I feel like that would require a lot of manual retagging, versus some aliases and implications.

SnowWolf said:
I mean, alternatively we could tag something like "no_torso_clothes" but I feel like that would require a lot of manual retagging, versus some aliases and implications.

That's pretty much what mostly_nude is for: characters wearing any combination of clothes that don't cover the bits that are usually covered by clothing.

SnowWolf said:
I mean, alternatively we could tag something like "no_torso_clothes" but I feel like that would require a lot of manual retagging, versus some aliases and implications.

That would overlap very heavily with topless since a topless character would have "no_torso_clothes".

SnowWolf said:
Lonely_socks?

I'm getting mental images of a sock sobbing over the other one's disappearance.

Should we broaden sock_only to legwear_only so we don't need additional tags for stockings, leg warmers, etc.?

BlueDingo said:
That would overlap very heavily with topless since a topless character would have "no_torso_clothes".

Mmm.. and bottomless, which was kinda the point. :) The torso is chest AND the pelvis area too... so I was going for.. y'know.. no shirts or pants, just accessories and arm-and-leg-wear... kinda topless + bottomless, but without being nude, and without implying "that they could be wearing something on the other half.

That said, people probably WOULD misinterpret it, so probably a bad idea.

I'm getting mental images of a sock sobbing over the other one's disappearance.

*snickers* That's heartbreaking and hilarious.

Should we broaden sock_only to legwear_only so we don't need additional tags for stockings, leg warmers, etc.?

I like the type of tree you're barking at, but think it's the wrong one.

the legwear wiki lists... footwear (boots, heels, shoes, socks) and legwear (covering tights, stoockings, pantyhose, legwarmers, leggings and assorted 'black/white/striped legwear')

I was gonna talk about hosiery-only for all your leg covering needs, but maybe footwear_only and legwear_only will do?

That said, while most legwear could fit under one umbrella... footwear's a different kettle of boots. someone seeking highheels_only is not gonna want boots... and socks_only won't want shoes. while most tights and pantyhose and legwarmers are *pretty* close together.

SnowWolf said:
Mmm.. and bottomless, which was kinda the point. :) The torso is chest AND the pelvis area too... so I was going for.. y'know.. no shirts or pants, just accessories and arm-and-leg-wear... kinda topless + bottomless, but without being nude, and without implying "that they could be wearing something on the other half.

In other words, mostly_nude.

SnowWolf said:
I like the type of tree you're barking at, but think it's the wrong one.

the legwear wiki lists... footwear (boots, heels, shoes, socks) and legwear (covering tights, stoockings, pantyhose, legwarmers, leggings and assorted 'black/white/striped legwear')

The following tags imply legwear: fishnet_legwear, socks, striped_legwear, leg_warmers, knee_socks, pantyhose, toeless_socks, tights, white_legwear, black_legwear, leggings, stockings, thigh_high_boots, thigh_highs. Legwear_only would cover all of them.

SnowWolf said:
That said, while most legwear could fit under one umbrella... footwear's a different kettle of boots. someone seeking highheels_only is not gonna want boots... and socks_only won't want shoes. while most tights and pantyhose and legwarmers are *pretty* close together.

footwear_only high_heels

BlueDingo said:
In other words, mostly_nude.

The suggestion came up in responce to the idea that one could not, for example, have scarf_only and socks_only.

Dyrone said:
What qualifies as "socks_only" though? What if they're wearing socks and a hat? Is that "socks_only" or "hat_only"? Or is it both? Or neither?

Genjar said:
Neither. Socks_only literally means socks only.

As, for example, this means that a character cannot wear visible socks and shoes at the same time and have a '*_only' tag. as such: post #1345406

...I also said that any kind of 'no torso clothes' tag would require a lot of work. I think it's a pretty rotten idea, but I think that 'limiting' a character to a single tag in regards to what they're wearing is also pretty poor.

I"m not saying my idea's the only idea--I actually dislike it quite a bit... but if we're goign to transition from naked_scarf and naked_gloves to scarf_only and Gloves_only... not only are we going to have to do a boat load of manual retagging, we're going to lose a bit of clarity.

Yes, one could search for mostly_nude Boots but then you'll get #thumb 1376645 post #1342853 which... really don't apply. Or for mostly_nude shoes: post #1348535 post #1348458

Mostly, my argument's summed up as "I think pictures should be able to have multiple "only" tags or that we should find a word other than 'only' so that we don't have to retag everything"

The following tags imply legwear: fishnet_legwear, socks, striped_legwear, leg_warmers, knee_socks, pantyhose, toeless_socks, tights, white_legwear, black_legwear, leggings, stockings, thigh_high_boots, thigh_highs. Legwear_only would cover all of them.

I'm just repeating what the legwear wiki says. If the wiki's wrong, it ought to be adjusted. *shrug* socks are, in all technicality, both footwear and legwear, depending on length.

*rubs forehead* Anyway, like I said, I disagree that the *_only tags should be limited to one and only one.

moving on.. I think legwear_only is a pretty great idea, considering the array of legwear available. Maybe armwear too.

footwear_only high_heels

And this works. But mostly, I was thinking that, say, boots_only or socks_only implies footwear_only, etc. *shrug* but whatever. I'm just offering two cents and trying to minimize work. If it's work people are willing to take, then that's great :)

Anyway, I think I've said my piece and am not contributing much to this discussion. AS such: the only snaked_scarf picture that matters: post #264398

SnowWolf said:
Mostly, my argument's summed up as "I think pictures should be able to have multiple "only" tags or that we should find a word other than 'only' so that we don't have to retag everything"

...then what'd be the point of this tag group?
Naked_* tags were made so that users could search for images where someone is wearing nothing but the specific piece of clothing.

SnowWolf said:
Or for mostly_nude shoes: post #1348535 post #1348458

Both mistags, since they're wearing clothing that covers genitalia.

SnowWolf said:
But it is a fair point that 'socks_only" suggests that there is ONLY socks... so maybe there's a variation? Lonely_socks? Lonely_scarf?

I've previously considered bare_* as a potential alternative, since it isn't as restrictive as *_only in terms of phrasing, and hence a post could have multiple bare_* tags applicable to it. With that being said, bare_* is still strongly subjective and I don't think it's the best potential alternative.

My impression of the point of this tag group was to find images of characters wearing extremely minimal amounts of clothing.

So, from where I'm sitting you can be:

• nude (wearing nothing)
• mostly nude (nothing on torso) which has 16,000 posts and even on the first page, I see a lot of 'mistags'
• 'Partially clothed' is 'clothed, but clothing's pulled aside, or half-off'

*'clothed' which has 256,000ish posts. "half dressed' is aliased to 'clothed'. 'topless' and 'bottomless' implicates clothed, as does 'partially clothed' and 'fully clothed' ... so clothed is basically saying "I'm wearing clothes' and can be anything from someone bundled up for an expedition to Mt Everest to wearing a single sock, presumably.

And then there's this which is 'single piece of clothing.'

Which, y'know, I'd get behind, except several pieces of clothing are almost always going to be worn along side others. Shoes and socks, for example. Winterwear -- a scarf and a hat, or boots and gloves. Beachwear: sunglasses and sandals. Sandals and a hat. ...Stockings and shoes. Armwarmers and legwarmers.

I'm not saying that what I had was the right solution, or even a good one, but... I don't know. Like I said before, this isn't a hill I"m willing to keep fighting on.

Except shoes and socks. Those almost always go together as a single unit. There *should* be a shoes_only *and* a socks_only, but they should also be seekable as a unit without invalidating the sanctity of the only-one-only tag. footwear_only could do! unless socks are legwear. then socks and shoes become footwear_only and legwear_only and... yeah.

But yeah, I got cooking to go do, y'all./ Have a great thanksgiving.

I was looking into the glasses_only tag only to find that the populated one was naked_glasses. Bumping this for +1.