That's too much of a double edged sword. Someone might like vore and want to see characters with distended bellies full of other characters, but hate mpreg and blacklist it. If we did what you're suggesting, those people would wrongly miss what they were looking for because you mislabeled it as something else that in your opinion looks similar. If you so love mpreg that you want anything that might resemble it, you could just search distended_stomach along with it, and if you so hated it that you never wanted it, but didn't want to exclude unrelated things that one of our uses considers similar, you wouldn't want that wide net being cast for bad reasons. That's why it's called tag what you see, not tag what you think you see.

BlueDingo
Privileged
6 months ago

I've just noticed an implications issue. Gauntlets implies gloves which implies clothing, meaning images featuring gauntlets will be tagged clothing even if no clothing is present.


BlueDingo said:
In regards to armor, I can't find an official term for shoulder armor. Terms like pauldron, spaulder and ailette all seem to refer to specific pieces of shoulder armor (according to Wikipedia, at least) and there are many images of characters wearing should armor that don't fit under those terms. Should we use a broad term like shoulder_armor or shoulder_guards for shoulder armor in general? Currently, I am using shoulder_guards for any shoulder armor that I can't identify.

shoulder_pads is loaded with armor images. We're gonna need to clear that up at some point.

Some group implications sounds good, yeah.

BlueDingo said:
I've just noticed an implications issue. Gauntlets implies gloves which implies clothing, meaning images featuring gauntlets will be tagged clothing even if no clothing is present.

We should probably remove that... I'm not sure if you can even consider leather gloves as being armor instead of clothing, so maybe gauntlets should be on their own as hand armor.

-

notnobody said:
That's too much of a double edged sword. Someone might like vore and want to see characters with distended bellies full of other characters, but hate mpreg and blacklist it. If we did what you're suggesting, those people would wrongly miss what they were looking for because you mislabeled it as something else that in your opinion looks similar. If you so love mpreg that you want anything that might resemble it, you could just search distended_stomach along with it, and if you so hated it that you never wanted it, but didn't want to exclude unrelated things that one of our uses considers similar, you wouldn't want that wide net being cast for bad reasons. That's why it's called tag what you see, not tag what you think you see.

Well, you're certainly in the right area to get fixes for these problems. "Big belly" can be a bit vague, and, sure, some people can be a bit more tolerant of images that don't feature the incredibly specific details, but some people aren't. Adding more tags for more obvious pregnancies might be a solution, such as something for a baby kicking against the lining. Do we already have tags like that in place, just underused/unnoticed?

BlueDingo
Privileged
6 months ago

Furrin_Gok said:
We should probably remove that... I'm not sure if you can even consider leather gloves as being armor instead of clothing, so maybe gauntlets should be on their own as hand armor.

It depends on the glove type. Gardening gloves and work gloves are often made of leather and wouldn't be considered armor (protective gear, maybe?) but leather gauntlets are much thicker and usually cover the forearm, plus armor can and often was made of leather.

glovesclothing is an interesting case since it is technically accurate but characters wearing them are generally not considered clothed unless they're also wearing a shirt or something (Mario vs Sonic).

The question is, which implication do we break to prevent mistagging, gauntletsgloves or glovesclothing?

Furrin_Gok said:
Well, you're certainly in the right area to get fixes for these problems. "Big belly" can be a bit vague, and, sure, some people can be a bit more tolerant of images that don't feature the incredibly specific details, but some people aren't. Adding more tags for more obvious pregnancies might be a solution, such as something for a baby kicking against the lining. Do we already have tags like that in place, just underused/unnoticed?

big_belly is meant to be simple and descriptive. Sure, the reason why the belly is big can vary (fat, pregnancy, inflation, vore) but it should still be used regardless of the reason since it is still accurate. The other tags require more information, that one doesn't.

As for a tag for a baby kicking... post #677840 is tagged kick and motion_lines. pregnant kick returns a few results.

O16
Member
6 months ago
abomasnow alakazam amaura animate_inanimate anthro arcanine avalugg bastiodon beartic bovine canine cranidos eeveelution excadrill feathered_wings feathers feline feral floatzel gengar gogoat hawlucha haxorus heliolisk hi_res insect_wings jellicent kingdra leavanny lillipup lucario lunatone luxray magneton makuhita mammal meowstic milotic miltank mismagius monster nidoking nintendo nosepass onix panpour pansage pansear pidgeotto piloswine pokémon poliwrath raichu rodent roserade scyther slaking sloth solrock starmie steelix swanna sylveon torkoal tyrunt video_games vileplume vivillon watchog weezing whirlipede wings zebstrika かんな_2日目東m02a

Rating: Safe
Score: 47
User: Rad_Dudesman
Date: February 28, 2016

BlueDingo said:
glovesclothing is an interesting case since it is technically accurate but characters wearing them are generally not considered clothed unless they're also wearing a shirt or something (Mario vs Sonic).

We have "mostly_nude", a specific tag for characters wearing only clothing that don't cover significantly their bodies.

BlueDingo said:
The question is, which implication do we break to prevent mistagging, gauntletsgloves or glovesclothing?

But why "clothing" and "armor" need to be mutually exclusive?
If I am not wrong, some light armors are composed by multiple layers of fabric; also exist light, but almost indestructible fabrics in fiction that may be used on armors (and there are special cases like the two-ton tunic from xiaolin showdown).

BlueDingo
Privileged
5 months ago

O16 said:
We have "mostly_nude", a specific tag for characters wearing only clothing that don't cover significantly their bodies.

But why "clothing" and "armor" need to be mutually exclusive?
If I am not wrong, some light armors are composed by multiple layers of fabric; also exist light, but almost indestructible fabrics in fiction that may be used on armors (and there are special cases like the two-ton tunic from xiaolin showdown).

abs anthro arche_kruz armor bandage biceps clothing feathers female gauntlets gloves mahina_kahli mammal model_sheet muscular muscular_female rodent solo squirrel talons thick_thighs weapon

Rating: Safe
Score: 1
User: LadyFuzztail
Date: September 04, 2009 anthro armor clothing dual_wielding echidna footwear gauntlets gloves holding_object holding_weapon knight knuckles_the_echidna male mammal maruringo melee_weapon monotreme red_body shoes sir_gawain solo sonic_(series) sonic_and_the_black_knight sword warrior weapon

Rating: Safe
Score: 4
User: Test-Subject_217601
Date: September 08, 2011

Please point to the clothing in these images.


BlueDingo said:
abs anthro arche_kruz armor bandage biceps clothing feathers female gauntlets gloves mahina_kahli mammal model_sheet muscular muscular_female rodent solo squirrel talons thick_thighs weapon

Rating: Safe
Score: 1
User: LadyFuzztail
Date: September 04, 2009

Foot wrappings

A single white glove.

Nipple covers.

anthro armor clothing dual_wielding echidna footwear gauntlets gloves holding_object holding_weapon knight knuckles_the_echidna male mammal maruringo melee_weapon monotreme red_body shoes sir_gawain solo sonic_(series) sonic_and_the_black_knight sword warrior weapon

Rating: Safe
Score: 4
User: Test-Subject_217601
Date: September 08, 2011

This one, though, none.


Im going just point out that anything used to cover/dress a living body or parts of the body -and that includes forms of armor that are to be worn on the body- are a form of clothing.

BlueDingo
Privileged
5 months ago

Ruku said:
Im going just point out that anything used to cover/dress a living body or parts of the body -and that includes forms of armor that are to be worn on the body- are a form of clothing.

So you would classify a breastplate as clothing?

Genjar
Former Staff
5 months ago
2011 annoyed antennae arthropod biped black_markings blue_eyes clear_membrane clothed clothing crossed_arms cute duo feral front_view green_body human insect insect_wings lifting lol_comments male mammal markings moth nisimawari pellucid_hawk_moth portrait quadruped shirt shorts simple_background solo_focus spread_wings standing three-quarter_portrait three-quarter_view traditional_media_(artwork) watercolor_(artwork) white_background wings

Rating: Safe
Score: 237
User: Genjar
Date: May 29, 2013

BlueDingo said:
So you would classify a breastplate as clothing?

Hm. If someone's wearing a breastplate, they're not nude. And if they're only wearing a breastplate, then technically the bottomless tag should apply... which implies clothed.

And at the moment the nudity tag group consists of these tiers: nude, mostly_nude, partially_clothed, and fully_clothed. Each character is expected to fit into one category.

So, yes, from the tagging viewpoint it would make some sense to consider armored characters to be 'clothed'.

BlueDingo
Privileged
5 months ago

Genjar said:
So, yes, from the tagging viewpoint it would make some sense to consider armored characters to be 'clothed'.

But at the same time, plate armor, chainmail, etc. are not considered clothing. And then there's protective gear (boxing gloves, knee pads, motorcycle helmets, etc.) to consider as well. And naked_towel.

O16
Member
5 months ago
abomasnow alakazam amaura animate_inanimate anthro arcanine avalugg bastiodon beartic bovine canine cranidos eeveelution excadrill feathered_wings feathers feline feral floatzel gengar gogoat hawlucha haxorus heliolisk hi_res insect_wings jellicent kingdra leavanny lillipup lucario lunatone luxray magneton makuhita mammal meowstic milotic miltank mismagius monster nidoking nintendo nosepass onix panpour pansage pansear pidgeotto piloswine pokémon poliwrath raichu rodent roserade scyther slaking sloth solrock starmie steelix swanna sylveon torkoal tyrunt video_games vileplume vivillon watchog weezing whirlipede wings zebstrika かんな_2日目東m02a

Rating: Safe
Score: 47
User: Rad_Dudesman
Date: February 28, 2016

Since the subjects in question are clothing and armor I have some aditional questions:

  • If a ghost posses a sock is it clothed?

It's a weird, interesting question...

So if someone was fully armored, you wouldn't be able to see whether they had any non-armor things on underneath, but you certainly wouldn't call them nude. For some reason my mind shot back to old jrpgs where usually your first "armor" was "clothes," and that never seemed too weird to say, at least. It's not really the stuff we'd normally think of as clothing, but maybe as garments? That word comes from old French for "equip," and in that sense it would fit. And now we consider those synonyms. Maybe it's just semantics, but I'd usually consider someone with just like pasties and maebari to be nude, and I figure the same would be true for just socks and gloves or something, but it doesn't make it less weird to have a solo pic simultaneously tagged with nude and clothed.

I thought for a minute I remembered us having a functionally_nude tag, but then I realized I was remembering that from gelbooru. Could be a useful concept to include for resolving issues like this.

Genjar
Former Staff
5 months ago
2011 annoyed antennae arthropod biped black_markings blue_eyes clear_membrane clothed clothing crossed_arms cute duo feral front_view green_body human insect insect_wings lifting lol_comments male mammal markings moth nisimawari pellucid_hawk_moth portrait quadruped shirt shorts simple_background solo_focus spread_wings standing three-quarter_portrait three-quarter_view traditional_media_(artwork) watercolor_(artwork) white_background wings

Rating: Safe
Score: 237
User: Genjar
Date: May 29, 2013

O16 said:
Why "armored" is aliased to "armor" instead of implicated?

See forum #172770. Not sure if I agree with that particular decision, might've been better to make it mirror the clothed/clothing pair.

If a ghost posses a sock is it clothed?

That's probably something that should be tagged case-by-case. Might fall under animate_inanimate sock, etc.

Is the "bottomless" tag appliable to taur, merfolk, naga, lamia, cecaelia and whatever this thing is?

Yes, it applies regardless of the form. Not to that thing though, that should be tagged as nude.

notnobody said:
I thought for a minute I remembered us having a functionally_nude tag, but then I realized I was remembering that from gelbooru. Could be a useful concept to include for resolving issues like this.

Gelbooru doesn't have a description for that tag. How does it differ from mostly_nude? Seems identical as far as I can tell, based on how they tag it.

BlueDingo
Privileged
5 months ago

O16 said:

Since the subjects in question are clothing and armor I have some aditional questions:

  • If a ghost posses a sock is it clothed?

1. forum #172770

2. I'd say a ghost possessing a sock is as much clothed as a ghost possessing anything else.

3. It should. If it has no clothing on the bottom half, it is bottomless. What the bottom half looks like shouldn't matter.


  • O16 said:
    • If a ghost posses a sock is it clothed?

    yes, to be exsact it would be mostly_nude

    Pretty good question, it would seem redundant on first sight but then we have the rare cases where the lower body is also clothed...

    2016 arrow beard bow_(weapon) cervine clothed clothing dagger deer deertaur facial_hair furgonomics gold_(metal) holding_object holding_weapon kobi_lacroix male mammal melee_weapon ranged_weapon solo taur weapon

Rating: Safe
Score: 2
User: kobi-lacroix
Date: November 23, 2016 big_breasts blonde_hair breasts centaur centorea_shianus_(monster_musume) clothed clothing equine equine_taur erect_nipples female hair huge_breasts long_ears long_hair mammal model_sheet monochrome monster_girl_(genre) monster_musume nipples otzer5957706 ponytail pose solo taur

Rating: Safe
Score: 9
User: Pasiphaë
Date: June 19, 2016


    Genjar said:
    How does it differ from mostly_nude?

    I tend to interpret that, and see it tagged there with the amount of noise I'd expect without any guidelines, that it means kind of "not nude, ...except where it counts." So like, someone wearing non-zero clothing, but nude in such a way that they could sex it up, or would be arrested in most public places, etc. Sort of opposite of a speedo where all you're wearing is what makes you functionally clothed, invert that and you have functionally nude. So, where you'd be mostly_nude wearing a c-string, you'd be functionally nude wearing thigh-high boots, shoulder-high gloves, a shrug, a cummerbund, a scarf, a and a hat... Lots of clothing, but still exposed in a way that's notably different from, say, slanging your dick out of your fly.

    O16, BlueDingo, Ruku said:
    ghost stuff

    We're talking about possessing as in taking over, right? Not, like, just having? Like is this just now a living sock with some googly eyes? I was interpreting that question as kind of "there is a living thing which itself is a piece of clothing, but is not draped in any clothing. Can clothing be nude if it's alive?..." And if I'm interpreting it right, I'd say no just because that would be confusing. I think it'd be productive to figure out just what we intend to mean by any usage of "nude." My gut is, it just means at minimum having full exposure of the areas where sex organs are or would be expected. Tacking on expected there to not disqualify pictures like

    Genjar
    Former Staff
    5 months ago
    2011 annoyed antennae arthropod biped black_markings blue_eyes clear_membrane clothed clothing crossed_arms cute duo feral front_view green_body human insect insect_wings lifting lol_comments male mammal markings moth nisimawari pellucid_hawk_moth portrait quadruped shirt shorts simple_background solo_focus spread_wings standing three-quarter_portrait three-quarter_view traditional_media_(artwork) watercolor_(artwork) white_background wings

Rating: Safe
Score: 237
User: Genjar
Date: May 29, 2013

    notnobody said:
    I tend to interpret that, and see it tagged there with the amount of noise I'd expect without any guidelines, that it means kind of "not nude, ...except where it counts." So like, someone wearing non-zero clothing, but nude in such a way that they could sex it up, or would be arrested in most public places, etc. Sort of opposite of a speedo where all you're wearing is what makes you functionally clothed, invert that and you have functionally nude.

    What you just described is identical to the mostly_nude tag: 'clothing' that doesn't cover any of the areas that are traditionally clothed. Character wearing only boots and a hat is tagged as a mostly_nude, whereas a c-string would instead fall under skimpy. ...extremely skimpy.

    BlueDingo
    Privileged
    5 months ago

    notnobody said:
    Can clothing be nude if it's alive?..." And if I'm interpreting it right, I'd say no just because that would be confusing.

    Can a jacket wear itself?

    notnobody said:
    I think it'd be productive to figure out just what we intend to mean by any usage of "nude." My gut is, it just means at minimum having full exposure of the areas where sex organs are or would be expected. Tacking on expected there to not disqualify pictures like post #3205

    The wiki says "Images or animations depicting at least one character who isn't wearing any clothing. Generally, decorations such as piercings and jewelry such as bracelets, rings, and necklaces do not count as "clothing". In addition, bondage does not count as clothing, to a point." which probably should be rewritten to mention armor and mention whether other covering (capes, towels, etc.) count.

    Genjar said:
    What you just described is identical to the mostly_nude tag: 'clothing' that doesn't cover any of the areas that are traditionally clothed. Character wearing only boots and a hat is tagged as a mostly_nude, whereas a c-string would instead fall under skimpy. ...extremely skimpy.

    "Functionally_nude" at Gelbooru seems to be a mix of mostly_nude and things where a character is wearing clothing but all their bits are showing.


    I take the difference between functionally and mostly for those descriptions to be sort of magnitude. So if nude were 0% clothed and clothed were 100%, it could be something like 0%<mostly<10% and 90%<functionally<100%. Exposed is occupying a corner of what that could refer to right now, but I think it's different in some way that matters whether you're seeing something like a Marilyn Monroe style upskirt vs a character who's just dressed in such a way as to leave their junk hanging out. It's almost like a style of dress, or a state of undress coupled with an indication that it's not just a freeze frame in the process.

    So take ones like these:

    Certainly clothed, and far from mostly being nude, but both exposed in totally non-accidental ways that generally wouldn't be publicly acceptable and would be workable for sex. Seems different to me from something like where anything that might be considered clothing is pretty negligible.

    BlueDingo
    Privileged
    5 months ago

    Any weapons experts out there that can help sort out the glaive, naginata and guan_dao tags? To me, they all look like the same thing: A sword blade on a spear handle.


    BlueDingo said:
    Any weapons experts out there that can help sort out the glaive, naginata and guan_dao tags? To me, they all look like the same thing: A sword blade on a spear handle.

    Glaive is just a European polearm, pretty much a sword blade on a stick; naginata have a round guard near or at the blade, like a katana; guan dao have a spike opposite of the edge and sometimes a notch directly below the spike to catch opposing blades.

    BlueDingo
    Privileged
    5 months ago

    Siral_Exan said:
    Glaive is just a European polearm, pretty much a sword on a stick; naginata jave a round guard near or at the blade, like a katana; guan dao have a spike opposite of the edge and sometimes a notch directly below the spike to catch opposing blades.

    Then what does this one count as? It's tagged guan_dao and naginata.

    anthro black_hair buckteeth chinese_clothing chinese_dress clothed clothing dress female fully_clothed fur guan_dao hair holding_object holding_weapon japanese_text looking_aside mammal melee_weapon mouse naginata oniwanbashu open_mouth open_smile polearm rodent short_hair smile solo tan_fur teeth text translation_request weapon

Rating: Safe
Score: 3
User: Kald
Date: August 16, 2010

    No spike like a guan_dao, not smooth enough for a naginata.

    We need to go thorough the tags to sort out which is which because naginata and glaive returns a range of weapons and some are tagged as more than one thing.


    BlueDingo said:
    Then what does this one count as? It's tagged guan_dao and naginata.

    anthro black_hair buckteeth chinese_clothing chinese_dress clothed clothing dress female fully_clothed fur guan_dao hair holding_object holding_weapon japanese_text looking_aside mammal melee_weapon mouse naginata oniwanbashu open_mouth open_smile polearm rodent short_hair smile solo tan_fur teeth text translation_request weapon

Rating: Safe
Score: 3
User: Kald
Date: August 16, 2010

    No spike like a guan_dao, not smooth enough for a naginata.

    We need to go thorough the tags to sort out which is which because naginata and glaive returns a range of weapons and some are tagged as more than one thing.

    Naginata. Original tags take priority, and it had guan dao added on. It is not a European polearm, the blade is too curved. I only intended to make descriptions without full on nerding out, this is a specific case.

    BlueDingo
    Privileged
    5 months ago

    Siral_Exan said:
    Naginata. Original tags take priority, and it had guan dao added on. It is not a European polearm, the blade is too curved. I only intended to make descriptions without full on nerding out, this is a specific case.

    Is there a generic term that would cover all three types, besides polearm?


    BlueDingo said:
    Is there a generic term that would cover all three types, besides polearm?

    As much as I would avoid stuff like generalizing, they're all basically pole-swords, a faux term to describe a sword blade on a pole. Then would be a poleaxe and halberds, axe heads on a pole; spears and pikes, basically tipped poles instead of edged; and hooked poles, but I think there is only one weapon by that design. Scythes aren't polearms, but are similar.

    Of note, there are more nameable polearms that I am not listing, I am fairly busy.

    BlueDingo
    Privileged
    5 months ago

    Siral_Exan said:
    As much as I would avoid stuff like generalizing, they're all basically pole-swords, a faux term to describe a sword blade on a pole. Then would be a poleaxe and halberds, axe heads on a pole; spears and pikes, basically tipped poles instead of edged, and hooks poles. Scythes aren't polearms, but are similar.

    I'm only asking for the general term because it's easy to identify a "sword on a stick" but most people wouldn't know the difference between the various types of "sword on a stick". A general term would allow them to at least call it something more descriptive than polearm without having to know exactly what it is.

    pole-sword (or polesword) should work as a general term, with glaive, naginata and guan_dao as implications.


    BlueDingo said:
    I'm only asking for the general term because it's easy to identify a "sword on a stick" but most people wouldn't know the difference between the various types of "sword on a stick". A general term would allow them to at least call it something more descriptive than polearm without having to know exactly what it is.

    pole-sword (or polesword) should work as a general term, with glaive, naginata and guan_dao as implications.

    Then feel free to glance through the list of pole weapons for thinking up implications. I'm ok with polesword, and if people can't tell the difference between a sword edge, an axe head, and a spear head, then at least polearm still suffices as the last of the tag series.


    IIRC quan dao roughly translates to "Quan's sword," because it was invented by some general Quan or something. Compared to the other two, it's a way bigger, heavier blade and shorter shaft. I remember some documentary at some point explaining that it was meant to be able to cut off horses' legs on the battlefield. Naginata are really long with a smaller, thin and light blade, because they were meant for getting up at the rider. They were really light overall, which is why women usually got training with them for self defense in case of an invasion. Glaives, I don't know much about. But at least for the other two, artists pulling designs out of their asses aside, probably easiest to say - long staff with little curved katana at the end, naginata, short staff with big heavy broad sword at the end, quan dao.

    Edit: Oh yeah.. and what about The Glaive? From Krull? Way more specific and a bit esoteric, but probably a much bigger association for those of us who remember the eighties...


    notnobody said:
    Edit: Oh yeah.. and what about The Glaive? From Krull? Way more specific and a bit esoteric, but probably a much bigger association for those of us who remember the eighties...

    The Glaive revealed by a quick "Krull Glaive" is just a 5-point throwing_glaive. We should probably make a tag for that, or else alias it if there's a proper name.
    Throwing Glaives are sort of an inverted Chakram, where instead of a blade only along the outside, the blades originate from the center outward. Similar to Chakram, they can be used without being thrown (Simply slice at the enemies with them, throw in a bit of spin for extra cut).

    Also, their ability to return akin to a boomerang is purely fictional. In fact, wikipedia says that "Throwing Glaives" have never been used in any real-world war.