The bulk update request #624 is active.

create alias pantless (0) -> pantsless (3316)
create alias no_pants (0) -> pantsless (3316)

Reason: All these things mean the same thing, and now that they've all been de-aliased from bottomless, I feel it's about time to unify them.

EDIT: The bulk update request #624 (forum #303567) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

The bulk update request #624 (forum #303567) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

The bulk update request #2834 has been rejected.

create implication pantsless (3316) -> clothed (1052621)

Reason: The pantless tag requires underwear and topwear to be present, therefore clothed.

EDIT: The bulk update request #2834 (forum #339792) has been rejected by @faucet.

faucet said:
so we're going with pantsless in the end rather than pantless?

Unfortunately, yes =(

But regarding the implication: this tag could instead imply bottomless, which in turn implies clothed.
Unless someone sees any problems with that, of course.

bitwolfy said:
But regarding the implication: this tag could instead imply bottomless, which in turn implies clothed.
Unless someone sees any problems with that, of course.

I see a problem with that: I originally requested this tag be de-aliased from the bottomless tag so that it could stop being flooded with characters who were not, in fact, bottomless. Considering the amount of heavy maintenance both tags already require, I'd really rather you didn't make things even worse.

wat8548 said:
I see a problem with that: I originally requested this tag be de-aliased from the bottomless tag so that it could stop being flooded with characters who were not, in fact, bottomless.

Thank you for not providing any kind of explanation.

After looking into it some more, I realized that since we are using the american definition of pantsless, that tag would also include characters wearing underpants, but not wearing outer garments on their legs.
That would disqualify them from being classified as bottomless.

So yeah, an implication to clothed is fine.

Yeah. I was first considering a case of pantslessness on close up images that only show the bottom part of a character, in which case it wouldn't be clear that the pantsless character would have clothes on the top, but as noted just on the above posts here, pantsless is different than bottomless, where there are no underwear either.

The bulk update request #2834 (forum #339792) has been rejected by @faucet.