The tag implication #39932 tasteful_nudity -> tasteful has been rejected.

Reason: According to the wiki page for tasteful, “If at least one of the characters in such a position is nude, the tasteful_nudity tag also applies.”

Logically, any tasteful nudity should also qualify for the tasteful tag.

EDIT: The tag implication tasteful_nudity -> tasteful (forum #311150) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.

If cute is an invalid tag, this should be too.

On the one hand this implication is valid the way the tags are defined, on the other hand I thought e621 was trying to do away with subjective tags

wat8548 said:
If cute is an invalid tag, this should be too.

romantic_couple and romantic are valid tags, so romance isn't considered "too subjective". Tasteful is a display of romantic attraction instead of interaction.

furrin_gok said:
Tasteful is a display of romantic attraction instead of interaction.

Is it? I always took "tasteful nudity" to mean "porn I'm into". What's tasteful to one person can be obscene to another, depending on how they view it and whether it crosses some personal threshold of being explicit. A person's viewpoint on whether something is a "tasteful nude" can also be influenced by if or how they're primed to think of the piece before seeing it, and they can change their mind after the fact.

watsit said:
Is it? I always took "tasteful nudity" to mean "porn I'm into". What's tasteful to one person can be obscene to another, depending on how they view it and whether it crosses some personal threshold of being explicit. A person's viewpoint on whether something is a "tasteful nude" can also be influenced by if or how they're primed to think of the piece before seeing it, and they can change their mind after the fact.

Not according to the wiki:

tasteful said:
in general images labeled as "tasteful" are more intimate and romantic than lustful. These pictures remain obviously sexual, but intimacy between characters is a more central focus. In general, visibility of genitalia is minimized

Some images definitely don't seem to have a romantic focus to them whatsoever though, so a cleaning is certainly in order.

furrin_gok said:
Not according to the wiki:
Some images definitely don't seem to have a romantic focus to them whatsoever though, so a cleaning is certainly in order.

Wouldn't romantic/romantic_couple/romantic_ambiance suffice for that? What would tasteful include beyond that? As it is, I'd consider something like this to be tasteful nudity, but there's no romantic or intimate overtones... just natural nudity as a focus. More than casual nudity, but not over-sexualized.

watsit said:
Wouldn't romantic/romantic_couple/romantic_ambiance suffice for that? What would tasteful include beyond that? As it is, I'd consider something like this to be tasteful nudity, but there's no romantic or intimate overtones... just natural nudity as a focus. More than casual nudity, but not over-sexualized.

Hm, I see what you mean. Outside of the wiki's definition, I would agree. But then you get images like post #2719679 and post #2683275 which I'd say don't look so tasteful. We'd have to find some way of defining it further if we wanted to include other things than "romantic."

The tag implication tasteful_nudity -> tasteful (forum #311150) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.