Topic: Tag implication: shirtless -> clothed & shirtless -> bottomwear

The tag implication #67068 shirtless -> clothed is pending approval.

Reason: Self-explanatory. Other clothedness tags have this implication.

We have pantsless which seems to be accepted. Though to be like the others it should get its own genderform subtags

snpthecat said:
Though to be like the others it should get its own genderform subtags

This sounds like it can spiral way too quickly

snpthecat said:
We have pantsless which seems to be accepted. Though to be like the others it should get its own genderform subtags

Wasn't there a big BUR collection for all the clothed genderform subtags? Those should probably be resolved first.

Doesn't shirtless mean the lack of a shirt? If so then having it imply clothed would be as much of a mistake as having nude imply fully_clothed

lust_demon_laz said:
Doesn't shirtless mean the lack of a shirt? If so then having it imply clothed would be as much of a mistake as having nude imply fully_clothed

shirtless means you're wearing bottomwear?
You don't tag "redundant" info for clothing. So nude isn't shirtless+pantsless + topless + bottomless

snpthecat said:
You know shirtless means you're wearing bottomwear?

I didn't know that shirtless implied bottomwear, I thought it merely implied not having a shirt. If shirtless implies bottomwear then wouldn't it make more sense to alias shirtless -> bottomwear? Or perhaps even invalidate the tag so that we only tag what's actually in the image, not the lack of something?

snpthecat said:
shirtless means you're wearing bottomwear?
You don't tag "redundant" info for clothing. So nude isn't shirtless+pantsless + topless + bottomless

This makes even less sense to me. If the character isn't wearing a shirt, shouldn't we just not tag the status of a shirt?

Edit: I'm not trying to be combative, it just seems like tagging what isn't there is a violation of TWYS

lust_demon_laz said:
This makes even less sense to me. If the character isn't wearing a shirt, shouldn't we just not tag the status of a shirt?

Edit: I'm not trying to be combative, it just seems like tagging what isn't there is a violation of TWYS

The tags are defined this way for maximum use. shirtless means they're not wearing topwear, but wearing underwear on the top half of their body (like bras), and it's distinct from underwear_only because they're wearing bottomwear

And by that metric, are you saying nude is not TWYS?

snpthecat said:
The tags are defined this way for maximum use. shirtless means they're not wearing topwear, but wearing underwear on the top half of their body (like bras), and it's distinct from underwear_only because they're wearing bottomwear

And by that metric, are you saying nude is not TWYS?

1. So does underwear not count at topwear? Would wearing an undershirt or something like longjohns imply shirtless?
2. Would a character wearing only a suit jacket count as shirtless? Because you say shirtless means they are not wearing topwear, but underwear on their top half
3. What if the character is wearing only a bra, no bottomwear, but also wearing a hat or shoes? Are shoes considered bottomwear?
4. You can see if a body is nude; it just seems like getting into tagging what types of clothing aren't there could create tag clutter fairly quickly

I am mainly confused as I don't typically use these general clothing tags. Typically by the time I get to pictures they've already had all that tagged and/or I'm working on more specific projects; like the specific type of hat, or type of jewelry, etc

lust_demon_laz said:
(...)

There are wiki pages you can read, they aren't just there for show

lust_demon_laz said:
You can see if a body is nude

Can you.. not see if a character is wearing bottomwear but no topwear?

pantsless already exists and is well established, shirtless is just the upper variant

donovan_dmc said:
There are wiki pages you can read, they aren't just there for show

Can you.. not see if a character is wearing bottomwear but no topwear?

pantsless already exists and is well established, shirtless is just the upper variant

By the wiki definition "Used for when a character is shown shirtless, but still wearing upper clothing, such as a bra, open topwear, overalls and others. If the character is not wearing any topwear at all, use topless instead." Not only is definition SNPtheCat gave only moments ago incorrect, but there is no mention of bottomwear.

The bulk update request #12426 is pending approval.

create implication shirtless (6689) -> bottomwear (500313)

Reason: A related request I think should be proposed. bra_only currently implies bottomless, which means that bottomless overrides shirtless; thus, all shirtless characters must have bottomwear.

Would shirtless apply to characters who are wearing socks_only? If so, that implication would cause mistags.

Edit: Oops, my bad, I misread the post. Ignore my yapping.

ruppari said:
I have no idea what you are on about here, but shirtless tag does not relate to what bottomwear character is wearing. It only means that character is wearing topwear that normally would "require" a shirt. Shirtless tag would apply for example to image of a character who is wearing pants and open jacket with no shirt, so bottomless tag would not apply. Shirtless tag is entirely different from bra only, because bra only tag requires character to wear bra, and nothing else.

Like this is is shirtless, but definitely not bottomless:
post #5916409

The implication request is for bottomwear, not bottomless... which might be valid.

watsit said:
Would shirtless apply to characters who are wearing socks_only? If so, that implication would cause mistags.

socks_only implicates mostly_nude transitively via footwear_only, so no.