Is the nudist tag unnecessary or massively under tagged? I can't really think of a way to distinguish a naked character from a nudist without some kind of dialogue, and I thought we weren't supposed to use dialogue to tag things. (If a dog says "I'm a cat." Should we really tag it as a cat just because it says so?) The wiki for it is nonexistent, so no help there.

Should the nudist tag stay or go? If it stays, a wiki entry regarding what makes a character a nudist in regards to TWYS would be necessary.

There's a difference between using dialogue for something sarcastic, such as a dog calling itself a cat, and using dialogue for something descriptive like cries for help in a rape scenario.

Back on topic, though I didn't know the tag existed and have never used it, I'd assume the tag should be associated with people (human or otherwise, not feral) performing everyday tasks, non-sexual tasks and non-sensually, while completely nude.

For example, a family of naked people grocery shopping.

Unless otherwise noted explicitly, text is not considered when tagging.
The only exception to that that I have seen so far(and there may be a few others) is for incest.

I can conceptually see a situation where we could classify nudist vs. nude.
That being said, the amount of problems it would cause vs. the usefulness of the possible tag would make it, in my opinion, not worth tagging.

Halite said:
Unless otherwise noted explicitly, text is not considered when tagging.

You keep repeating that, but still haven't provided any sources for that rule.

If a character is talking about being on a nudist beach (or if there's a sign that says such), and (s)he is nude, then I don't see why we wouldn't tag it as nudist.

Genjar said:
You keep repeating that, but still haven't provided any sources for that rule.

If a character is talking about being on a nudist beach (or if there's a sign that says such), and (s)he is nude, then I don't see why we wouldn't tag it as nudist.

This is also correct. The TWYS rule states that any of the tags are directly verifiable within the picture in question. This includes text and signs as you can easily see them. Only when it is not verifiable within the picture (such as what is clearly a dog claiming to be a cat) does text not matter.

Ko-san said:
...This includes text and signs as you can easily see them...

That's not what verifiable means.
Someone saying something doesn't verify it's truth.
If it did, then we wouldn't need all sorts of documentation to verify things.

Genjar said:
You keep repeating that, but still haven't provided any sources for that rule.

If a character is talking about being on a nudist beach (or if there's a sign that says such), and (s)he is nude, then I don't see why we wouldn't tag it as nudist.

They had to discuss in admin committee before allowing it for incest, what more do you want?

Verify
to make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified.

If we have two people having sex, but we cannot see their faces, then we just know they are having sex. If the submissive partner is crying for help then we add the "forced" tag.

If we see a group of people naked, then we only know they are naked. If we see a group of people naked with a sign that specifies that they are on a nude beach, then we add the "nudist" tag.

On the contrary, if we see Runt calling Rita a dog, but Rita is clearly not a dog, then we add the "feline" tag.

Text shouldn't be ignored. It is part of the picture, can easily be seen and can give context where there is doubt.

But it doesn't verify anything, it provides unverified information.

Halite said:
But it doesn't verify anything, it provides unverified information.

You can plainly see it happening. It gives you more knowledge on the subject, hence verification.

I see we have a bit of a debate about verification going on here. I think I'll wait for an Admin to step in, for their word is God.