Why does mostly_nude not imply clothed?

The definition of it indicates a character wearing clothing, and there was an entire discussion about nude vs mostly nude and this topic didn't come up in it. I was wondering if clothed was intended to mean more than minor clothing or not.

I'm questioning this because clothed_feral wiki excludes these minor clothing items from it for some reason. There is no such restriction for clothed. I can only assume that clothed applies for a character wearing any amount of clothing.

I'm not sure why that restriction for clothed_feral is there on the wiki. I'm guessing it was a mistake, but I'd like to hear from other folk before removing that part from the wiki.

I'm guessing forum #183132 was the forum you mentioned? When discussing mostly_nude there, I don't think there was a definitive answer to why mostly_nude doesn't imply nude (since it was never brought up). However, from the discussion it seemed like mostly_nude could sometimes apply to extensive amounts of accessory or jewelry type items, which might be why it wasn't ever implicated to clothed (for such rare cases of a mostly_nude character without any articles of clothing).

D.D.M. said:
I'm not sure why that restriction for clothed_feral is there on the wiki. I'm guessing it was a mistake, but I'd like to hear from other folk before removing that part from the wiki.

I'm guessing forum #183132 was the forum you mentioned? When discussing mostly_nude there, I don't think there was a definitive answer to why mostly_nude doesn't imply nude (since it was never brought up). However, from the discussion it seemed like mostly_nude could sometimes apply to extensive amounts of accessory or jewelry type items, which might be why it wasn't ever implicated to clothed (for such rare cases of a mostly_nude character without any articles of clothing).

That's the thread I looked through.

• I hope you meant implied clothed.
• Even if there was a rare exception, the Wiki for the tag states that the tag is for characters only wearing clothing. Although after I made this thread I thought about what characters wearing towels are considered. Not considered nude or clothed IMO.

If they decide to not imply clothed for mostly_nude, then a lot of these *_only tags need to imply clothed instead.

• I found the clothed_feral wiki unusual.

TheVileOne said:
That's the thread I looked through.

• I hope you meant implied clothed.
• Even if there was a rare exception, the Wiki for the tag states that the tag is for characters only wearing clothing. Although after I made this thread I thought about what characters wearing towels are considered. Not considered nude or clothed IMO.

If they decide to not imply clothed for mostly_nude, then a lot of these *_only tags need to imply clothed instead.

• I found the clothed_feral wiki unusual.

D.D.M. said:
When discussing mostly_nude there, I don't think there was a definitive answer to why mostly_nude doesn't imply nude clothed (since it was never brought up).

Whoops, don't how I overlooked that typo!

I'm not sure if that wiki description for mostly_nude is still the standard or not, though I assume it is (the wiki description seems to largely be unchanged since its creation, before I had even started the aforementioned forum post). Though overall I see what you mean. I'm not sure if towel_only characters should be considered clothed or mostly_nude, but I don't have any objections if folks would like to imply mostly_nude -> clothed (it would certainly make the tag implications easier, since clothed wouldn't have to manually be added to every post tagged with mostly_nude).

I also think that implying the mostly_nude-oriented *_only tags (such as apron_only, cape_only, footwear_only, gloves_only, hat_only, and scarf_only) to clothed is a good idea in the event mostly_nude doesn't end up implying clothed.