without knowing about the alias, to me no pants would mean something like "when a character has a top and underwear on(or a covered/obscured groin) but no 'pants' or any type of bottomwear usually worn over underwear(pants, shorts, skirt, etc.)". with that kind of logic these kind of pics might be getting auto included into the bottomless category

post #687112 post #1260193 post #1615078

maybe make it it's own tag but might be easier to just alias to invalid

wanted to use it for this pic since you can't tell if the character has underwear on or not to really be bottomless.

post #2021216

not a tag I've ever used just a common sense tag kind of thing "well bottomless might not be appropriate... no_pants maybe?" fast forward here after checking the wiki

alias: https://e621.net/tag_alias?query=no_pants&aliased_to=&user=&approved=all&forum_post=all&order=tag

post #2021216 should be tagged bottomless, pretty clear they aren't wearing underwear

Blind_Guardian said:
should be tagged bottomless, pretty clear they aren't wearing underwear

by the situational context yeah probably, without the assumption though a thong could definitely hide behind that thing(+hand) so since I couldn't see whether or not the character was bottomless I tried to find a better alternative before going that route.

mostly just wondering if it would be a good idea to remove no_pants A-> bottomless or maybe go with no_pants A-> invalid