Implicating bottomless → half-dressed
Link to implication

Reason:

This has been discussed before in this forum: https://e621.net/forum/show/136810

Approved. topless and bottomless imply a contrast between the specified part being unclothed while implying the other is in fact clothed, because if there was no clothing on them at all, then it would be tagged as nude instead.

Where it gets tricky is in images where you can only see part of their body, but what you can see has zero clothing on them. Just like a fully nude person could technically be tagged with both topless and bottomless, we could also tag a half-length nude portrait as topless. But that actually makes things harder for searches because then people without any clothes on them can be found under all three tags of these tags, and any distinction between them gets blurred for no benefit.

nude means they're not wearing anything at all. So it would be more consistent if we tagged all of the images where there's no visible clothing on them as nude. If you can't see their bottom half, but everything you can see is nude, then tag it nude. If you can't see their bottom half, but you can see the waistband of something just barely, then tag it topless because they are only half-dressed instead of completely nude.

Whether or not something is cropped short of showing you their full body is a separate set of tags entirely, and it doesn't work to inconsistently combine them like a percentage of tagging has been doing. Just like topless and bottomless have to sometimes be taken off of completely nude images, this will definitely need a cleanup. Especially since it's been unclear for more than a year now.

Noice!

I'll keep furrypicke's words of wisdom in mind.

But at the moment, I'm working on adding the scalie tag to most dragon posts.