Topic: all the nudes

The bulk update request #5711 is pending approval.

create implication nude_anthro (91189) -> anthro (3975873)
create implication nude_anthro (91189) -> nude (1459035)
create implication nude_male (63106) -> nude (1459035)
create implication nude_male (63106) -> male (2970109)
create implication nude_female (68715) -> nude (1459035) # duplicate of implication #50373
create implication nude_female (68715) -> female (2974173)
create implication nude_gynomorph (5833) -> nude_intersex (5372)
create implication nude_gynomorph (5833) -> gynomorph (231151)
create implication nude_andromorph (1287) -> andromorph (29232)
create implication nude_andromorph (1287) -> nude_intersex (5372)
create implication nude_herm (499) -> nude_intersex (5372)
create implication nude_herm (499) -> herm (31500)
create implication nude_maleherm (267) -> nude_intersex (5372)
create implication nude_maleherm (267) -> maleherm (5506)
create implication nude_intersex (5372) -> intersex (295429)
create implication nude_intersex (5372) -> nude (1459035)
create implication nude_ambiguous (990) -> ambiguous_gender (375359)
create implication nude_ambiguous (990) -> nude (1459035)

Reason: these implications don't exist for some reason, no idea why?

nunyabidness2 said:
Reason: these implications don't exist for some reason, no idea why?

Because it's uncertain if they should exist, given all the potential combinations <clothing status>_<sex> creates. See topic #37849 and topic #34712.

In either case,

create implication nude_gynomorph (1721) -> nude (1074341)
create implication nude_andromorph (272) -> nude (1074341)

these should implicate nude_intersex if they're staying, and nude_intersex would imply nude instead. You're also missing nude_herm and nude_maleherm.

watsit said:
Because it's uncertain if they should exist, given all the potential combinations <clothing status>_<sex> creates. See topic #37849 and topic #34712.

In either case,
these should implicate nude_intersex if they're staying, and nude_intersex would imply nude instead. You're also missing nude_herm and nude_maleherm.

Not sure I follow? How should I do it then?

nunyabidness2 said:
Not sure I follow? How should I do it then?

basically, you'll want to make a daisy chain implication. nude_gynomorph -> gynomorph and nude_gynomorph -> nude_intersex is fine as is, but rather than doing nude_gynomorph -> nude just keep nude_intersex -> nude since when you tag nude_gynomorph, it'll proceed to tag gynomorph and nude_intersex, which then tags nude. you save yourself a redundant implication that way, rather than two tags trying to tag nude you'll only have one tag.

also, you missed herms and maleherms in this. they're also intersex, so the aforementioned would apply to them as well.

watsit said:
Because it's uncertain if they should exist, given all the potential combinations <clothing status>_<sex> creates. See topic #37849 and topic #34712.

Coincidentally, I just used nude_anthro for the first time today. I think these sorts of tags can be useful in cases where you have more than one form in the same image and only one of them is nude. There's no other way to replicate the search nude_anthro fully_clothed_human. The same goes for tags like bottomless_female.

Having said that, I just saw that I voted down on one of those topics you linked, so I dunno. Maybe we should make it a formal rule that these tags shouldn't be used in cases where they add no extra information, same as how topless bottomless nude solo is an invalid tag combo (with 5 pages of results, good job crew). Or we do have the existing precedent of the clothed_gender_nude_gender tag hierarchy, which is theoretically even worse from a combinatorial explosion POV.

siral_exan said:
basically, you'll want to make a daisy chain implication. nude_gynomorph -> gynomorph and nude_gynomorph -> nude_intersex is fine as is, but rather than doing nude_gynomorph -> nude just keep nude_intersex -> nude since when you tag nude_gynomorph, it'll proceed to tag gynomorph and nude_intersex, which then tags nude. you save yourself a redundant implication that way, rather than two tags trying to tag nude you'll only have one tag.

also, you missed herms and maleherms in this. they're also intersex, so the aforementioned would apply to them as well.

okay, think i've done it properly now

nunyabidness2 said:
okay, think i've done it properly now

You still have nude_andromorph implying nude instead of nude_intersex, and nude_herm and nude_maleherm should also imply herm and maleherm respectively.

clothed_nude, everyone is naked under their clothes, it is just that their nude is clothed.

wat8548 said:
You still have nude_andromorph implying nude instead of nude_intersex, and nude_herm and nude_maleherm should also imply herm and maleherm respectively.

okay how about now?

nunyabidness2 said:
okay how about now?

Now nude_maleherm -> nude_intersex is on there twice.

wat8548 said:
Now nude_maleherm -> nude_intersex is on there twice.

fixed