So, the tag's wiki currently says that if the pussy is fully covered, the image should be tagged camel_toe instead, but what if there IS NO camel toe effect, and the pussy's only visible because the panties/swimming suit/what-have-you is translucent? Such as in the case of this image and its child post?

Fully covered in this context means covered from view. If the clothing is translucent it no longer functions as a visual cover, hence the pussy itself is visible, and not just an outline like it would do with a camel toe.

The panties in that specific image isn't even translucent. There is just a slight crease in crotch area. That's it.

Pakattu_suojakaasuun said:
The panties in that specific image isn't even translucent. There is just a slight crease in crotch area. That's it.

I have to disagree. That doesn't look anything like a crease, to me. So, to avoid an argument, can we get a staff ruling on this one, please?

A crease should be soft, not sharp. That looks like regular stitching as you can find on lots of panties.

I meant the line visible in the groin area. It looks, to me, like the panties are juuuust translucent enough to let the pussy be visible. Do any staff members agree, or do y'all think I'm just talking out of my ass?

I am talking about the same line you're talking about, again, that's likely stitching and not either a crease or translucence.

But I've seen quite a lot of panties in my time (from washing/folding laundry of my sisters growing up, and yes, also from sexy times), and I've never seen a pair that has anything over the crotch that would lead to stitching. The seam where the panties are sewn together tends to be in between the crotch, and the butt. Right across about the center of the taint. Plus, what would even be the point of stitching that doesn't even go anywhere, like that?

Jacob said:
can we get a staff ruling on this one, please?

You got a staff ruling and now you're proceeding to argue with it and ignore it. Why ask for the staff to weigh in if you didn't want to listen to what they had to say?

Okay, so perhaps I asked for the wrong thing in that post. In hindsight, I should've requested a discussion, instead, as that's what this has become. Also, I'm not trying to argue or be rude, I'm just stating my case for why I still believe it's an instance of translucent panties.