The tag implication #53454 diaper -> underwear has been rejected.

Reason: At first there was topic #27468 (diaper -> underwear). It was rejected.

Then there was topic #27743 (diaper -> clothing). It was rejected.

I'm with the people in both threads who point out that diapers are usually worn under clothing, clothing is never worn under diapers, some diapers are deliberately designed to resemble underwear to the extent that telling them apart under TWYS may be difficult in some circumstances, and it is in fact possible for an article of clothing to serve a functional purpose without losing its designation as "clothing".

EDIT: The tag implication diaper -> underwear (forum #386910) has been approved by @slyroon.

From Wikipedia: "A diaper (/ˈdaɪpər/, NAmE) or a nappy (BrE, AuE, IrE) is a type of underwear..."
So... I mean, I guess?? I don't think of them as the same personally, and was ready to downvote, but maybe that's just a me problem.

Is there a separate tag for regular underwear worn over a diaper? Is that even a thing? I usually avoid diapers myself so I don't know :P

While it may be technically correct, I don't think anything good will be brought about via this implication
all I expect is people complaining there are diapers when they search underwear, which yes they can blacklist or negate, but that's not the point

The tag implication diaper -> underwear (forum #386910) has been approved by @slyroon.

The tag implication diaper -> underwear (forum #386910) has been approved by @slyroon.

This has been met with mixed to negative opinions both now, and previously (topic #27468: 3 down, 1 meh, 2 up, excluding the creator). I don't think this should have been approved so quickly

donovan_dmc said:
This has been met with mixed to negative opinions both now, and previously (topic #27468: 3 down, 1 meh, 2 up, excluding the creator). I don't think this should have been approved so quickly

I agree this one was too hasty. I think there's even good arguments against it technically being underwear, it's very common to see a baby wearing nothing but a diaper or wearing a shirt/vest alongside their diaper. It would typically only be older children that would also wear a pair of pants over the top of them. I think the expectation of underwear is that it should be hidden unless you're in a state of undress, and I don't think people would regard a baby wearing a shirt/diaper combo as partially undressed. It fits within the acceptable parameters of baby outerwear, imo. Some types of diapers (pull-ups, diaper briefs and etc.) are more explicitly designed to be underwear and could probably be tagged as such, however I think a lot of the larger diapers are clearly not supposed to be designed to easily fit underneath other clothing.

topic #27743 probably should've been accepted, and only got rejected because the backlog got neglected for so long. I don't think the "medical device" argument in that thread served anything but to derail it, while I think the vast majority of people were in favor of considering diapers as clothing.

The diaper_only tag already implies topless, so diapers are already considered bottomwear (a subtag of clothing) at minimum. I think that's the ideal target here, diaper -> bottomwear.

---

Taking this quote from topic #27468 - it really shows how many taggers actually considered diapers to be underwear 3 years ago. That's only about 3.5% of posts, and some of those are also obviously going to contain other characters wearing underwear.

crocogator said:
Hmm... It doesn't seem to be used that way currently, for the most part.
diapers underwear <- 292 posts
diapers -underwear <- 8073 posts

That was over 3 years ago, I could probably use the db_exports to provide an up-to-date example from before this implication was approved, but I think I've already spent enough time arguing on behalf of something I don't care about.

The bulk update request #6263 is active.

remove implication diaper (25541) -> underwear (362242)

Reason: undo, per above arguments

EDIT: The bulk update request #6263 (forum #387265) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #6264 is active.

create implication diaper (25541) -> bottomwear (407471)

Reason: I think this is the best target for implication: diapers are most definitely clothing, and worn as bottomwear.

edit: This alias would make sense even if you support the diaper -> underwear implication as not all underwear is inherently bottomwear (bras or undershirts)

EDIT: The bulk update request #6264 (forum #387266) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

faucet said:
I agree this one was too hasty. I think there's even good arguments against it technically being underwear, it's very common to see a baby wearing nothing but a diaper or wearing a shirt/vest alongside their diaper. It would typically only be older children that would also wear a pair of pants over the top of them.

Clothes are worn over diapers when there's a reason for them to be clothed. Diapers can be worn without anything over them, just like boxers, briefs, panties, and bras can, but they're still underwear.

faucet said:
I think the expectation of underwear is that it should be hidden unless you're in a state of undress, and I don't think people would regard a baby wearing a shirt/diaper combo as partially undressed.

I would. If it's a scenario where people in general are expected to be dressed, I'd expect even babies and young children to be dressed with pants or shorts or whatever over their diapers. I was around babies and young kids plenty in my teens and young adult years, even had a couple being raised in the same house, and them having clothes over diapers was the norm.

faucet said:
I agree this one ... I don't care about.

I completely agree with you and Donovan. I am into non-poop-soiled diapers and I love undies, but I think diapies and underwear fulfill different niches IRL and kink-wise.

I think this would be more reasonable if there were a more overarching "under garment" tag or something of the sorts
I personally only consider things like boxers, panties, thongs, etc underwear - though underwear actually also includes bra, which last I knew trying to get that removed was a losing battle
As far as I'm aware, there is no umbrella tag for boxers and the like, what I think most would consider "underwear", not "under wear" (worn under)

Diapers -> underwear feels like an implication that will only cause trouble. It may be technically accurate but it's unintuitive and lacks much utility.
Are there people who want to see diapers AND underwear who wouldn't just search for diapers separately or use ~underwear ~diaper?

Can’t you just blacklist diapers or abdl or something?
I did that and I see none in the underwears. Incredible.

I'm not sure about this. I know diaper is technically underwear, but is implicating diaper to underwear really the best idea for tagging purposes?

hjfduitloxtrds said:
I'm not sure about this. I know diaper is technically underwear, but is implicating diaper to underwear really the best idea for tagging purposes?

Since a diaper is underwear, I think the question should be, how would excluding the underwear tag from posts with a diaper improve the utility of the tags? What would the benefit be of a type of underwear not being tagged as underwear?

watsit said:
Since a diaper is underwear, I think the question should be, how would excluding the underwear tag from posts with a diaper improve the utility of the tags? What would the benefit be of a type of underwear not being tagged as underwear?

I'm just not sure about that right now. I'm asking how would including the underwear tag on diaper post improve utility?
I don't really have strong feelings either way. More like whatever happens with this doesn't really affect me either way.

I just think it would be for ease of use. If someone is in the mood to find pics of fox girls in panties, or wolves in boxers, they will search underwear tag. Diapers shouldn’t show up automatically. Especially for something as fetishy. People looking for diapers will be able to search diapers just fine. The panties, boxers, thongs, etc are a lot closer together as underwear than diapers.

To me, it’s like wigs… there can be a tag for headwear for all the different kinds of hats. But is a wig really a hat just because you wear it in your head? Hope that’s a good example.

The bulk update request #6263 (forum #387265) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #6264 (forum #387266) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

I am going to attempt to fix up the posts via grabbing an old posts export and comparing to the current posts

Well that's wrong, they're definitely not bottomwear. Couldn't we have tried to make an underwear/undergarment distinction instead, like Donovan suggested earlier? Now we'll have to clean 20,000 posts out of the bottomwear tag. bottomwear was supposed to be specifically for outerwear, not just anything worn on the bottom part of the body, hence why non-bra underwear never implied that tag.

Or if anything, just make it imply clothing instead. It's not even close to being considered bottomwear by the current wiki definition, unless we want to change it to include underwear too now.

I was through 11600/22819 removals before seeing this, so presuming we get this rejected, I can go back on myself and remove bottomwear. It's better than having to clear it off of 20,000 posts at least

(by better than 20,000 I mean it won't show up in the tag history)

The bulk update request #7220 is active.

remove implication diaper (25541) -> bottomwear (407471)

Reason: This was actually a remarkably poor decision for a few reasons.

For one, diaper simply doesn't fit the description of bottomwear:

Clothing worn on the lower and outermost part of the body around the pelvic region, such as pants, shorts, and skirt.

This is why underwear such as boxers and panties don't imply bottomwear. Worn on the pelvic region, yes, but not intended to be worn as the outermost layer. Unless we're going to change the definition of bottomwear to include underwear, but that also sounds like a mess. Diapers have to be worn as the bottommost layer to function properly, so they definitely can't be defined as the outermost layer that the bottomwear tag requires. Actual outerwear is usually worn over diapers, so they can't be considered outerwear themselves.

There is also a big functional problem here: diapers are commonly worn underneath proper bottomwear (as they are intended to be), and are still tagged even when underneath other clothing. Let's say you want to find characters wearing diapers but not covered by other clothing. Previously, you could simply search diaper -bottomwear to achieve that pretty reliably, but with diaper now implying bottomwear this is no longer possible. diaper_under_clothing exists, but it's quite underpopulated so your results won't be great, plus it includes non-bottomwear clothing like dresses and long shirts, which is probably not what you're looking to filter out anyway. So, currently the best solution would be to - everything that currently implies bottomwear except diaper, which is... a lot of tags. And this is because bottomwear and diapers are not mutually exclusive, but often worn together because they're intended to be worn together.

I understand that most people probably don't put diapers in the same conceptual category as underwear, but that implication at least was not such a problem because diapers and underwear are (with the exception of a bra) mutually exclusive. They are typically not worn together because the diaper takes the place of the underwear so it's unlikely that you'll have a need to filter out underwear from diaper posts. Most of what you'll achieve by doing that is filtering out characters wearing both a diaper and a bra, or posts with multiple characters where one has a diaper and the other has underwear, or cases of discarded clothing, none of which is relevant if you're just trying to find uncovered diapers. But sure, people don't like the implication regardless, that's fine. Throwing it under bottomwear isn't the solution, though. That's the opposite of a solution, it's rather just an even bigger problem.

So, what is the solution?
There are at least two that I can think of.

The first is to have diaper simply imply clothing instead. Regardless of whether or not it's underwear or bottomwear or anything else, we should all at least be able to agree that it's a type of clothing. Bypass the whole issue and just call it clothing. Simple.

The other solution was mentioned above, but we could split underwear into two tags. This would actually solve other problems that we've had in addition to this one, although it would require a lot of new tags. Probably worth it in the long run.

The idea here is to have one tag for anything that's meant to be worn underneath other clothing - let's call it undergarment for now. Maybe a better name can be figured out, but that works for me. We can throw bra under that tag since bras are most likely not what people searching underwear are actually looking to find despite being technically considered underwear, just like diaper. This has been a point of confusion for a long time. I've seen people trying to remove the underwear tag from posts with a bra, and being unable to due to the implications. It technically meets the definition of underwear, but generally muddies searches with unexpected results. We could have an undergarment tag used for "normal" underwear in addition to bras and diapers, and retain the underwear tag for what people actually usually think of as underwear - panties, boxers, briefs, etc. - we could even count socks or stockings if we wanted to, as they are also meant to be worn under something else, though that may be superfluous. However, it would allow us to tags a character wearing only, say, panties, bra, and stockings as undergarments_only, which probably would be useful.

Also, pantyhose is definitely an undergarment. A character such as in post #2011305 wearing only panties, bra, and pantyhose would qualify for something like undergarments_only as they are not wearing any kind of outerwear. There are likely other garments that would qualify for a tag like this while we're at it. Corset comes to mind. This is also a type of underwear (source: Wikipedia ) which has been ignored by our current tag structure despite being closely related to the bra. The current topwear implication is pretty dubious, though. This is another type of clothing that would be better considered a type of undergarment, but that people typically searching underwear aren't looking to find.

Alternatively... we use underwear instead for this purpose, and create a new tag for just "typical" underwear. This way, we won't have to undo all of the tag structures that are already in place for bras, such as all the colors of bras implying (color)_underwear and so on. Not to mention all of the panties + bra posts currently tagged underwear_only - sifting through all of that sounds like a nightmare. This would probably be easier. So, perhaps... underpants? This tag name already implicitly excludes bras, since those are not worn under the pants. It admittedly doesn't strictly apply to diapers, as those are worn under pants, but I feel like this is the kind of distinction that the average user will be able to make easily enough. At this point, all we'd really have to do is change the implications from panties, briefs, etc. over to underpants and then have underpants and other derivative tags imply underwear. Then leave bras as underwear, add in diapers, probably corsets and pantyhose and other similar undergarments that have been ignored, and now we have a distinction that still allows people to find their "typical" underwear via the underpants tag.

So... thoughts on all of that? But regardless of any of that, diapers definitely need to not be bottomwear, so let's get that out of the way first, then decide on having it imply either clothing directly or setting up a new tag to distinguish atypical undergarments from the expected ones.

EDIT: The bulk update request #7220 (forum #397099) has been approved by @slyroon.

I recommend adding an unimplication of topless from diaper_only

The bulk update request #7220 (forum #397099) has been approved by @slyroon.

auto_moderator said:
The bulk update request #7220 (forum #397099) has been approved by @slyroon.

well that was easy

snpthecat said:
I recommend adding an unimplication of topless from diaper_only

Well, all of the 'only bottom underwear' tags also imply topless (ie. panties only, briefs only etc.), so that one should be fine to keep. The topless wiki only requires that a character is wearing any kind of clothing on their pelvic region and no clothing on their chest area, so diaper only definitely still counts, regardless of whether it's underwear or bottomwear or whatever.

For what it's worth wearing diaper implies clothed, so diaper -> clothing would be solid

The bulk update request #8657 is pending approval.

create implication diaper (25541) -> clothing (2065897)

Reason: It can't fall squarely under bottomwear or underwear, but it's still clothing

Diapers are used to catch and contain bodily fluids the same as condoms, I wouldn't consider condoms clothing.

Regardless of what logical fallacy I'm committing here, you wouldn't look at someone with just a diaper and go "he's wearing clothing!"

You can always just do "mostly_nude", that doesn't imply clothes, but implies something is on the character.

gusta_cz said:
You can always just do "mostly_nude", that doesn't imply clothes, but implies something is on the character.

hmm... thinking about it, is there any reason that mostly_nude doesn't imply clothing? nearly everything that implies mostly_nude already implies clothing as well, and generally, even stuff that isn't consided clothing when its unworn becomes clothing when it's being worn in such a way that it covers a portion of the body.

dba_afish said:
hmm... thinking about it, is there any reason that mostly_nude doesn't imply clothing? nearly everything that implies mostly_nude already implies clothing as well, and generally, even stuff that isn't consided clothing when its unworn becomes clothing when it's being worn in such a way that it covers a portion of the body.

topic #32080
topic #28242
topic #27706
Probably the number of rejections is making others think twice about implying mostly_nude to clothed. Most cited reason is that the character can be considered mostly nude without wearing anything that could be considered an article of clothing/item does not qualify as being worn

You've also strongly voted against it in the past, twice

snpthecat said:
topic #32080
topic #28242
topic #27706
Probably the number of rejections is making others think twice about implying mostly_nude to clothed. Most cited reason is that the character can be considered mostly nude without wearing anything that could be considered an article of clothing/item does not qualify as being worn

You've also strongly voted against it in the past, twice

not clothed just clothing.

dba_afish said:
hmm... thinking about it, is there any reason that mostly_nude doesn't imply clothing? nearly everything that implies mostly_nude already implies clothing as well, and generally, even stuff that isn't consided clothing when its unworn becomes clothing when it's being worn in such a way that it covers a portion of the body.

Could imply it, as far as I can tell.
I think we've been relying on it getting implicated via the specific clothes. But of the current implications, bow tie and bandanna don't imply clothing. Plus all the instances where only mosly nude is tagged and the uploader forgot to tag what makes it mostly nude.

dba_afish said:
hmm... thinking about it, is there any reason that mostly_nude doesn't imply clothing? nearly everything that implies mostly_nude already implies clothing as well, and generally, even stuff that isn't consided clothing when its unworn becomes clothing when it's being worn in such a way that it covers a portion of the body.

I concur, it depends how we wanna define "clothing" but I think characters wearing accessories such as collars, rings, jewelry, braclets, anklets, etc. still count as "nude" as long as they aren't wearing clothing. Clothing seems to be the only difference between nude and mostly_nude, clothing that doesn't cover the torso or groin.