The tag implication #43260 mostly_nude -> clothed has been rejected.

Reason: By definition, mostly nude is still clothed.

EDIT: The tag implication mostly_nude -> clothed (forum #325383) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.

Do shoes, sandles, gloves, hats, and ties count as clothing?

This tag is implied by things like bow_tie_only and footwear_only, which I really don't think should be defined as "clothed". mostly_nude exists for the purposes of characters who are functionally, but not technically, fully nude. There are many other tags which describe incomplete clothing while remaining on the other side of the clothed boundary, e.g. partially_clothed, bottomless, etc.

watsit said:
Do shoes, sandles, gloves, hats, and ties count as clothing?

This is honestly half the reason I made this - collars and glasses are counted as accessories so glasses_only and collar_only both imply nude. If those items you listed don't count as clothing, it should surely instead be implying nude rather than mostly_nude.

And if they all count as clothing, the clothed implication makes sense considering a character wearing any amount of clothing should be tagged with clothed.

If mostly_nude itself can't implicate clothed other tags that are definitely clothing like stockings_only should implicate both mostly_nude and clothed.

faucet said:
This is honestly half the reason I made this - collars and glasses are counted as accessories so glasses_only and collar_only both imply nude. If those items you listed don't count as clothing, it should surely instead be implying nude rather than mostly_nude.

And if they all count as clothing, the clothed implication makes sense considering a character wearing any amount of clothing should be tagged with clothed.

If mostly_nude itself can't implicate clothed other tags that are definitely clothing like stockings_only should implicate both mostly_nude and clothed.

This is how I understood the tagging structure to be constructed currently. If collar_only implies nude under the presumption that a collar is an accessory and not clothing, that means that mostly_nude necessarily implies clothed. Stockings_only implies mostly_nude, and stockings implies clothing, which means that a stockings_only character should be tagged as clothed.

However, wat8548 pointed out that bow_tie_only implies mostly_nude, which is an issue. bow_tie itself does not imply clothing (it should imply accessory, I think) so clothed would be invalid in that case. However, the solution would be to simply change that tag’s implication from mostly_nude to nude, in line with collar_only.

Either way, +1. This implication has lots of downvotes, but I don’t see any convincing arguments against it.

here's how i see it: no topwear, no bottomwear, no clothed tag

scaliespe said:
However, wat8548 pointed out that bow_tie_only implies mostly_nude, which is an issue. bow_tie itself does not imply clothing (it should imply accessory, I think) so clothed would be invalid in that case. However, the solution would be to simply change that tag’s implication from mostly_nude to nude, in line with collar_only.

That's pretty much what I was thinking - if an accessory isn't counted as clothing it should instead be implying nude, which would eventually leave this tag only with things that are clothing and therefore everything being clothed.

There's also some very dubious implications to mostly_nude like kimono_only, something that is designed to cover the majority of the body and should definitely be counted as clothing...

I also feel like apron_only covers a lot more than things that count as clothed, a character wearing only a loincloth would probably be tagged with topless and therefore clothed despite covering less than an apron.

dripen_arn said:
here's how i see it: no topwear, no bottomwear, no clothed tag

So you think we should also remove the legwear -> clothing, footwear -> clothing, armwear -> clothing, tail_clothing -> clothing, penis_clothing -> clothing, cape -> clothing, handwear -> clothing implications, and many others? If a character wearing these things aren’t clothed, that means these don’t count as clothing.

A character wearing clothing is clothed, that’s all there is to it.

faucet said:
There's also some very dubious implications to mostly_nude like kimono_only, something that is designed to cover the majority of the body and should definitely be counted as clothing...

I almost feel like that should be just straight aliased to kimono, or at the very least have that implication removed, same for robe_only, they can worn in a range range anywhere from what would be considered fully_clothed to mostly_nude. it'd be like having coveralls_only or wetsuit_only.

The tag implication mostly_nude -> clothed (forum #325383) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.

The bulk update request #3891 has been rejected.

remove implication kimono_only (142) -> mostly_nude (126363)
remove implication robe_only (731) -> mostly_nude (126363)
remove implication apron_only (6220) -> mostly_nude (126363)

Reason: I forgot about this, but I agree with the discussion above. Any garment which could potentially (or almost certainly, in the case of an apron) cover the torso and crotch does not meet the criteria for mostly_nude.

EDIT: The bulk update request #3891 (forum #354405) has been rejected by @wat8548.

(Was a duplicate of topic #30560, which has been approved.)

The bulk update request #3891 (forum #354405) has been rejected by @wat8548.