So no_bra is aliased to invalid_tag, but its wiki page says "see braless" which is a tag with quite a few posts.
I personally feel like this is a reasonable tag and one that people might want to search for. There are cases where you can see a character doesn't have a bra under their shirt, like:
post #4340777

Should no_bra be revalidated and braless aliased to it, matching no_underwear, or should braless be invalidated too?

Yeah, sounds good to me.

vulpes_artifex said:
Yeah, sounds good to me.

Which one? Revalidating no_bra or invalidating braless?

cloudpie said:
Which one? Revalidating no_bra or invalidating braless?

Revalidating.

The bulk update request #5644 is active.

remove alias no_bra (1031) -> invalid_tag (15)

Reason: See my original post. I assume the tag should become no_bra (instead of braless) in order to match no_underwear.

After:
alias braless -> no_bra
alias no_bra_under_clothes -> no_bra

And potentially:
imply no_bra -> topwear
imply no_bra -> clothed
imply no_bra -> breasts

Maybe there's some fringe edge case I haven't thought of regarding those implications, though. Regarding the breasts implication, I was thinking the no_bra tag would only be valid for a character with breasts, since bras are made to hold breasts and flat-chested people don't typically wear them.

EDIT: The bulk update request #5644 (forum #378514) has been approved by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #5644 (forum #378514) has been approved by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #6380 is active.

create alias braless (10) -> no_bra (1031)
create alias no_bra_under_clothes (6) -> no_bra (1031)
create implication no_bra (1031) -> clothed (1047937)

Reason: part 2

EDIT: The bulk update request #6380 (forum #389130) has been approved by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #6381 has been rejected.

create implication no_bra (1031) -> breasts (1613706)

Reason: i can see people potentially having opinions about this one so it gets its own bur

EDIT: The bulk update request #6381 (forum #389131) has been rejected by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #6382 (forum #389132) has been rejected by @SNPtheCat.

cloudpie said:
create implication no_bra (0) -> topwear (453712)

I can see this being an issue. Aside from the generic issue of people that like to tag no_<clothing> and bare_<bodypart> on a completely nude character, no_bra sounds like it could apply to a topless character that only has bottomwear.

watsit said:
I can see this being an issue. Aside from the generic issue of people that like to tag no_<clothing> and bare_<bodypart> on a completely nude character, no_bra sounds like it could apply to a topless character that only has bottomwear.

You could say the same about no_underwear though couldn't you?

cloudpie said:
You could say the same about no_underwear though couldn't you?

Yeah, but no_underwear only implies clothing, not bottomwear.

watsit said:
Yeah, but no_underwear only implies clothing, not bottomwear.

fair enough! removing that line

cloudpie said:
create implication no_bra (1) -> breasts (1546259)

While I can see the argument that no_bra should only apply to characters with breasts, I feel that we shouldn't exclude those who are flat_chested (see braless flat_chested).
Flat-chested females can also be "expected" to wear a bra underneath their clothing.

This stands out against the other *_breasts tags (e.g., bare_breasts, exposed_breasts, covering_breasts), which would require characters to actually have breasts.
However, they have alternative tags for flat_chested characters under *_chest (e.g., bare_chest, exposed_chest, covering_chest).

watsit said:
Yeah, but no_underwear only implies clothing, not bottomwear.

Hang on, is this just because no_underwear includes dresses and dresses aren't considered bottomwear and don't imply it?

thegreatwolfgang said:
While I can see the argument that no_bra should only apply to characters with breasts, I feel that we shouldn't exclude those who are flat_chested (see braless flat_chested).
Flat-chested females can also be "expected" to wear a bra underneath their clothing.

This stands out against the other *_breasts tags (e.g., bare_breasts, exposed_breasts, covering_breasts), which would require characters to actually have breasts.
However, they have alternative tags for flat_chested characters under *_chest (e.g., bare_chest, exposed_chest, covering_chest).

Makes sense!

The bulk update request #6381 (forum #389131) has been rejected by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #6380 (forum #389130) has been approved by @slyroon.