The tag implication #45519 clothed_anthro -> anthro has been approved.

Reason: 'clothed_anthro' should implicate 'anthro'

EDIT: The tag implication clothed_anthro -> anthro (forum #341042) has been approved by @slyroon.

is this even a valid tag? we don't generally tag the clothing status of a character by form, do we? (other than clothed_feral, but that's diffrent)

darryus said:
is this even a valid tag? we don't generally tag the clothing status of a character by form, do we? (other than clothed_feral, but that's diffrent)

Has about 1k images so I just assumed it was valid. Is there a way to check if a tag is valid or not?

constellation said:
Has about 1k images so I just assumed it was valid. Is there a way to check if a tag is valid or not?

Every tag is valid until it’s made invalid. The question here is not whether or not this tag is currently valid (it is), but whether or not it should be valid.

On the one hand, there are probably upwards of a million posts on this site featuring clothed anthros, so this is so massively undertagged that one could argue that we shouldn’t keep the tag at all. On the other hand, I could see it being useful for situations with multiple characters with different body types in different states of undress. If you want to find a human_on_anthro pairing where the anthro is clothed and the human is nude, you’d likely need tags like this and nude_human to properly find them. There is precedence for tags like this in nude_female, topless_male, etc. This one is just missing from so many posts, though.

scaliespe said:
Every tag is valid until it’s made invalid. The question here is not whether or not this tag is currently valid (it is), but whether or not it should be valid.

On the one hand, there are probably upwards of a million posts on this site featuring clothed anthros, so this is so massively undertagged that one could argue that we shouldn’t keep the tag at all. On the other hand, I could see it being useful for situations with multiple characters with different body types in different states of undress. If you want to find a human_on_anthro pairing where the anthro is clothed and the human is nude, you’d likely need tags like this and nude_human to properly find them.

I mean that'd make more sense to have a clothed_x_nude_y tags rather than tagging the clothing status of every form a character can have.

scaliespe said:
There is precedence for tags like this in nude_female, topless_male, etc. This one is just missing from so many posts, though.

those types of tags also don't feel like they'd be things that ought to be valid. if I remember correctly, they started being added a little while after the clothed/nude tag family kinda became fully formed when it got a bunch of implications for parings of all 7.5 genders, early on there were users (including myself) that were removing the tags when they were added but they kinda just got too much, and I guess no one ever made an invalidation request.

darryus said:
I mean that'd make more sense to have a clothed_x_nude_y tags rather than tagging the clothing status of every form a character can have.

those types of tags also don't feel like they'd be things that ought to be valid. if I remember correctly, they started being added a little while after the clothed/nude tag family kinda became fully formed when it got a bunch of implications for parings of all 7.5 genders, early on there were users (including myself) that were removing the tags when they were added but they kinda just got too much, and I guess no one ever made an invalidation request.

Well, the topless tags now imply topless + the gender or form (see topless female, topless male, topless anthro, topless human), so those at least are “official” now. Same with bottomless, and I think that implies that the related nude_* and clothed_* tags should also be valid.

With that being said, despite how undertagged these are, I don’t think it would actually hurt anything to keep them, and they can be useful in certain duo or group images.

scaliespe said:
Well, the topless tags now imply topless + the gender or form (see topless female, topless male, topless anthro, topless human), so those at least are “official” now. Same with bottomless, and I think that implies that the related nude_* and clothed_* tags should also be valid.

huh, that's weird, honestly... especially since it looks like they got added against the will of the general forum-going userbase. the first alias request got 9ups, 3nuts, 2 downs, mostly from dedicated taggers, as well as a bit of discussion, and it sat unapproved for well over a year. while the implication request had 2ups from users that had 3-digit edit counts at the time, no discussion, and Millcore approved it after only a month.

darryus said:
huh, that's weird, honestly... especially since it looks like they got added against the will of the general forum-going userbase. the first alias request got 9ups, 3nuts, 2 downs, mostly from dedicated taggers, as well as a bit of discussion, and it sat unapproved for well over a year. while the implication request had 2ups from users that had 3-digit edit counts at the time, no discussion, and Millcore approved it after only a month.

I recall there being a bigger thread about this a while ago where this was all hashed out in much more detail, but I don’t know where it is presently. It does seem like that’s the tag structure now, however it got that way, so… maybe best to just roll with it? Like I said above, I don’t see the existence of these tags actually causing any problems.

Is this still being considered? I use the tag among others and had planned to request an implication BUR for a while:
fully_clothed_female -> clothed_female
fully_clothed_male -> clothed_male
fully_clothed_anthro -> clothed_anthro
clothed_female -> clothed
clothed_female -> female
clothed_male -> clothed
clothed_male -> male
clothed_anthro -> clothed
clothed_anthro -> anthro

I'm going to vote against these tags like partially_clothed_anthro on the grounds that it adds more than 50 tags with low utility that are unlikely to be tagged reliably.

I am especially going to vote against tags like partially_clothed_anthro_on_nude_humanoid as this adds more than 2500 tags.

clothed_anthro should alias anthro not imply it.

I get that we would all love character-based tagging or tag relationships or tagging specific parts of an image but e6 just isn't designed to handle those advanced capabilities.

leomole said:
I'm going to vote against these tags like partially_clothed_anthro on the grounds that it adds more than 50 tags with low utility that are unlikely to be tagged reliably.

I am especially going to vote against tags like partially_clothed_anthro_on_nude_humanoid as this adds more than 2500 tags.

clothed_anthro should alias anthro not imply it.

I get that we would all love character-based tagging or tag relationships or tagging specific parts of an image but e6 just isn't designed to handle those advanced capabilities.

I agree these tags need to go, but also the currently-"official" topless_* and bottomless_* would need to go as well, so it's all consistent.

clothed_anthro -anthro
clothed_anthro -clothed
This doesn't even make sense. How are both of these tags not present on so many? There's even some with neither tag.

alphamule said:
clothed_anthro -anthro
clothed_anthro -clothed
This doesn't even make sense. How are both of these tags not present on so many? There's even some with neither tag.

Maybe people assume that clothed_anthro implies clothed and anthro because e621 has a rigorous implication system?

snpthecat said:
Maybe people assume that clothed_anthro implies clothed and anthro because e621 has a rigorous implication system?

LOL, could be! Or it might not be the correct tag! Also could be!

Don't tag the defaults. clothed_feral is fine, nude_anthro might even be fine, clothed_anthro is a waste of valuable tagging time.

wat8548 said:
Don't tag the defaults. clothed_feral is fine, nude_anthro might even be fine, clothed_anthro is a waste of valuable tagging time.

So invalidate clothed anthro? Or probably just alias it to anthro

wat8548 said:
Don't tag the defaults. clothed_feral is fine, nude_anthro might even be fine, clothed_anthro is a waste of valuable tagging time.

Wouldn't call anthros being clothed a default, especially not on e621. It is a waste to tag it on solo pics, yes, but it's not technically wrong, and even useful on feral/anthro pictures.

waydence said:
Wouldn't call anthros being clothed a default, especially not on e621. It is a waste to tag it on solo pics, yes, but it's not technically wrong, and even useful on feral/anthro pictures.

The one situation in which it would be useful there is if there is a clothed feral character and a nude anthro character... which is exactly what clothed_feral is for. Otherwise, if you just search clothed anthro feral, you would reasonably expect the anthro character to be clothed.

The tag implication clothed_anthro -> anthro (forum #341042) has been approved by @slyroon.

With this implication, does it legitimise the clothed_[form] tags? Should we have a clothed human and clothed humanoid?

The bulk update request #6228 is active.

create implication clothed_anthro (19585) -> clothed (1144848)

Reason: Might as well, since the other implication has gone through.

EDIT: The bulk update request #6228 (forum #386861) has been approved by @slyroon.

I'm not sure why this is being approved tbh. The reason clothed_feral exists is because ferals typically aren't clothed. Same as the reason nude exists and ferals aren't tagged for it.

definitelynotafurry4 said:
I'm not sure why this is being approved tbh. The reason clothed_feral exists is because ferals typically aren't clothed. Same as the reason nude exists and ferals aren't tagged for it.

I can see the value in the clothed_[form] tags. For example, if you search clothed nude anthro humanoid human you can get all sorts of combinations where some forms are clothed and others are not

The bulk update request #6228 (forum #386861) has been approved by @slyroon.