Implicating panties_down -> undressing.

Reason: if panties are going down, there's some amount of undressing occurring.

I disagree here..

in some pictures, the panties won't be going any further down as part of the 'scene'... post #142833 in others, the panties are kindof forgotten about: post #117874 post #87262

The same could be said for or argued against in relation to post #142249 post #142155 or post #139213 among others. Undressing is being used to show that clothes are in a state of undress, ie; partially or wholly taken off, regardless of how far off they're being taken.

well.. that's one for and one against. Let's see what others have to say.

Ontop of that, panties_Down could also be taken as someone about to get dressed, and just caught in an awkward moment~

Look at the pictures under the tag. They're all pulling down their panties or with their panties already pulled down, often in other states of undress.

but. It's possible tat a picture could be added like that.

here's a question. if your panties are down, are you bottomless?

Can't I just walk around with my panties around my ankles, with no intent of removing them from around my legs? Huh?

Also I could put a pair of panties on around my shorts or pants, while I'm still wearing them.

SnowWolf said:
here's a question. if your panties are down, are you bottomless?

I would guess not... but it depends if you're wearing some other type of legwear as well.

YOU can walk aroudn with your panties around your ankles, but only because you're river. ;)

It's a good question, though. bottomless, I mean. because technically your bottom is exposed.

looking at bottomless there are several images of peopel with leggings, or panties down or around their ankles.

What exactly does bottomless mean? Nothing covering your hip/crotch area, your hip to knee area, or just nothing at all?

Images or animations depicting a character wearing clothing over the upper half of their body, but not over the lower half. The equivalent of topless.

This should be obvious, but there have been mistakes in the past, so to be clear: do not apply both the "bottomless" and "topless" tags to an image in which the character is nude.

The following are aliased to this tag: no_panties

by which the answer would be no.. but the posts in bottomless suggest that the definition has evlved, perhaps.

So.. I think things either need retagging... or the definition needs adjusting. although this is also on like a quick 30 second glance, so I could be wrong too.

Things need retagging. The definition of bottomless means they are not wearing anything on any part of themselves below the hip. The same kinda thing is happening with topless too, you get characters wearing hats and gloves and... corsets? post #102813

well, i think hats would be okay.. just liek I'd say shoes would be okay for bottomless... but.. fair enough.

I really should start a to do list.

If I thought anyone would actually help with it (and the 12 other 'projects' floating around in my head), I'd make a forum post on the matter c_c; .. sorta a 'wanna help? you could go do this" kinda thing.

I would totally help you out with your projects, Snow. I got a couple of my own I'm trying to fix now, actually :P

panties_down =/= bottomless. Skirt on, but panties down, major example. That said, consider that this is a being used as a porn archive (no matter that it's called an art archive by you the staff :P) and thus, if panties are down, it's going to be porn-related, which means clothes coming OFF, not going ON. even then, if they're putting panties on, rather than panties_down, that would fit better on panty_pull (as they're pulling them up).

I use bottomless just if the butt area is uncovered, so I still tag it if there's panties around knees. And I use stripping/undressing if they look like they're in the process of removing their clothes.

Guys and dear Mods, I think the alias no_panties -> bottomless is little incorrect.
As simple: A shirt (top clothing) + A skirt (bottom clothing) but without panties.
Bottomless means lack of bottom clothing. But how about skirt, lack of panties and a view from below?
post #115077
post #155624
post #251966
post #259213
So I propose to unalias the no_panties tag from bottomless tag. Best wishes.

Loc0 said:
Guys and dear Mods, I think the alias no_panties -> bottomless is little incorrect.
As simple: A shirt (top clothing) + A skirt (bottom clothing) but without panties.
Bottomless means lack of bottom clothing. But how about skirt, lack of panties and a view from below?
post #115077
post #155624
post #251966
post #259213
So I propose to unalias the no_panties tag from bottomless tag. Best wishes.

post #348447 - shirt + skirt + no_panties -> aliased to bottomless tag is incorrect, I think. I still propose unaliasing.

Agreed. This implication sometimes works, but not always.