Does wearing socks, stockings, etc mean a character is not in their underwear only? The wiki cheatsheet says underwear_only means no top or bottom wear and makes no explicit mention of socks. Personally I think it's fine, socks are basically a kind of underwear and I'm 100% with them in my search results for that tag.

And if they're not compatible the closest search terms I can think of to get underwear+socks would be "underwear legwear -topwear -bottomwear" which would run into a lot of problems with anything that has multiple characters/images, which seems like bad news for searchability.

The cheatsheet is for differentiating between pantsless, mostly_nude, underwear_only, etc... and is duplicated across multiple tags. The specific description fror underwear_only says "and nothing else" so any other articles of clothing invalidate "undererwear *only*".

kaworu said:
The cheatsheet is for differentiating between pantsless, mostly_nude, underwear_only, etc... and is duplicated across multiple tags. The specific description fror underwear_only says "and nothing else" so any other articles of clothing invalidate "undererwear *only*".

I suppose maybe I should have phrased it "Should legwear invalidate underwear_only" Because technically the wiki says that doesn't count (at present) but 1. The wiki is hardly set in stone and 2. As I said before, excluding socks (without at least creating some additional socks+underwear tag) seem like it'd just make things worse/harder to search for for the sake of technical consistency. So it's a question of what would work best here, what's more important, and perhaps what's the spirit of "the law" rather than just the letter.

So basically, like how nude makes allowances for accessories I think underwear_only should allow legwear since while it's not technically considered underwear here it does fit most dictionary and cultural definitions of "underwear" and just makes more practical sense (to me anyways.)

Someone retagged something I uploaded and I wanted a third (or fourth, etc) opinion instead of starting some dumb tag-war or something.

So the post in question is post #3199786, I guess.

If you're asking for opinions, my vote is no. Follow the letter of the law, not the spirit. It's fine to be flexible with tags if a definition hasn't been established, but changing it after it has been written is much more expensive.

I'd feel sketchy about tagging a character with a bracelet as underwear_only. Socks/stockings are definitely over the line. Not sure about tights if they're the only thing worn.

matrixmash said:
So the post in question is post #3199786, I guess.

That'd be it, yes.

For the record it hadn't even remotely occurred to me that it wasn't "underwear only" and I suspect that's true as well for many others tagging (and presumably searching as well) since roughly 12% of the underwear_only tag includes legwear of some kind.
So either the definition needs to change to include this or hundreds of posts need to be retagged with either a new, even more specific tag, or just have the tag removed with no replacement (an idea which I very much do not favor since it would be losing specificity)

"socks_and_underwear_only" seems a bit long though (sidenote: would it hypothetically be possible to preemtively alias a reverse-order version of a tag?)

I'd be willing to make the tag edits personally, though it'd probably take a few days (tagging limits)

mystery_rodent said:
...roughly 12% of the underwear_only tag includes legwear of some kind...

...Ah. In that case, I would be flexible. If many people already treat some forms of legwear as underwear, then it's a losing battle to fight them.

I retract my complaint. I don't know what to do in this situation.

Honestly, I'd go further (speaking as the person who wrote the cheatsheet mentioned) and say that anything that is not specifically topwear or bottomwear is fine to tag as underwear_only.

In my mind, there is a hierarchy of clothing which should be considered when tagging things as only, which reflects what people would want to see in practice when browsing any of the mentioned tags:

• Both topwear and bottomwear present? Character counts as fully_clothed, even if barefoot.
• topwear present but bottomwear absent? bottomless (if no underwear) or pantsless (if underwear), regardless of legwear, footwear, handwear or headwear.
• topwear and bottomwear absent but underwear present? underwear_only, no further questions asked. (For male characters, I also usually tag this as topless.)
• All three of topwear, underwear and bottomwear absent but legwear, footwear, handwear or headwear present? Character is now mostly_nude, even if wearing thigh_highs and elbow_gloves. More specific only tags may be considered if there's only one of them, but there isn't a good tag for hat_and_socks_but_no_shoes.