The tag implication #57493 diaper_only -> bottomless has been rejected.

Reason: Diaper_only implies no pants, which fits under the criteria for bottomless (diaper implicates underwear). It also already implicates topless.

EDIT: The tag implication diaper_only -> bottomless (forum #394596) has been rejected by @dragomess99.

since diaper implies underwear, diapers are considered clothing on e6; topless & bottomless don't get tagged if those respective parts of the body are clothed. ergo, a character only wearing a diaper is just topless, not bottomless. additionally, topless and bottomless should not be tagged when the character is wholly nude, they are meant for when a character is wearing clothing on the other area (so, pants or undies for topless, shirt or jacket for bottomless, et cetera).

siral_exan said:
since diaper implies underwear, diapers are considered clothing on e6; topless & bottomless don't get tagged if those respective parts of the body are clothed. ergo, a character only wearing a diaper is just topless, not bottomless. additionally, topless and bottomless should not be tagged when the character is wholly nude, they are meant for when a character is wearing clothing on the other area (so, pants or undies for topless, shirt or jacket for bottomless, et cetera).

Ah, I got the tags mixed up 🙃, I had meant to make this post with the pantsless tag.

siral_exan said:
since diaper implies underwear, diapers are considered clothing on e6; topless & bottomless don't get tagged if those respective parts of the body are clothed. ergo, a character only wearing a diaper is just topless, not bottomless. additionally, topless and bottomless should not be tagged when the character is wholly nude, they are meant for when a character is wearing clothing on the other area (so, pants or undies for topless, shirt or jacket for bottomless, et cetera).

Though if diapers are underwear, then wouldn't the topless implication be incorrect, and diaper_only should imply underwear_only instead?

Though if you think that the original diaper -> underwear implication is incorrect, would diaper_only imply pantsless too? Oh, topic #43014

snpthecat said:
Though if diapers are underwear, then wouldn't the topless implication be incorrect, and diaper_only should imply underwear_only instead?

that's where the implication becomes complicated... they are garments for your groin area, so they should be bottomwear if we want to keep this clothing implication, but right now they're only implying underwear. the forum post that contained the request is topic #42062, very little discussion was made before they got implied and since then, another pair of requests were made to unimply them and imply bottomwear instead.

siral_exan said:
that's where the implication becomes complicated... they are garments for your groin area, so they should be bottomwear if we want to keep this clothing implication, but right now they're only implying underwear. the forum post that contained the request is topic #42062, very little discussion was made before they got implied and since then, another request was made to unimply them and imply bottomwear instead.

Actually, do we really want to imply diaper to clothing (indirectly through bottomwear or currently through underwear)? Not sure if it should be considered as such. I feel it's somewhat more similar to chastity belt (in terms of being clothing)