Topic: [REJECTED] Tag implication: mostly_nude -> clothed

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

The tag implication #34283 mostly_nude -> clothed has been rejected.

Reason: The "clothed" tag is meant to be used when any character has any amount of clothing on at all. The only tag that requires an image to include a character who's fully dressed, is the "fully_clothed" tag. The "mostly_nude" tag is meant for when they're wearing some clothing, but not enough to cover anything naughty. Therefor, mostly_nude, by definition, requires that a character qualify for the clothed tag.

EDIT: The tag implication mostly_nude -> clothed (forum #298441) has been rejected by @Millcore.

Updated by auto moderator

While this implication should work theoretically, there are some fringe cases for mostly_nude where clothed wouldn't be accurate. For example, a character wearing an excessively large amount of accessory items or a minimal amount of armor, both situations where tagging nude and clothing/clothed wouldn't be accurate.

Though I am wondering whether 'mostly_nude characters that are wearing clothing items' should or shouldn't also be tagged as clothed (I think I might have brought this question up before).

jacob said:
Nope.

d.d.m. said:
Yeah, while it currently isn't implicated to accessory, jewelry generally falls underneath the accessory category (and thus is not clothing).

So the above posts are considered nude instead of mostly_nude?
Since, the wiki for mostly_nude states:

  • "Tagged when a character is only wearing clothes that don't really cover anything around the torso region..."

And also revisiting topic #11880, this implication should be accepted, no?

wouldn't characters who are wearing towel_only that covers their waist down considered as being topless? on it's own a towel is not considered clothing, but can be worn in such a way where the character is clothed, which means that when worn non-clothing items can become clothing when a character wears them.

  • 1