Topic: [APPROVED] Tag implication: collar_only -> nude

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

faucet

Member

The tag implication #40237 collar_only -> nude has been approved.

Reason: A character wearing only a collar is nude as a collar is not counted as clothing. As per the wiki:

When a character is wearing a collar, and nothing else.

Note that a collar does not count as clothing, and therefore the character should be tagged as nude.

EDIT: The tag implication collar_only -> nude (forum #312357) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

Updated by auto moderator

Watsit

Privileged

I do seem to recall that tags like nude and all_fours shouldn't be used for ferals and quadrupeds respectively (there are clothed_feral and on_hind_legs to denote when a normally-nude feral is clothed and a normally-all_fours quadruped character is on their back legs only). But it seems that changed at some point to say they "can" or "doesn't need to" be tagged that way (indicating it's optional? that's pretty weird).

TheGreatWolfgang

Privileged

strikerman said:
Why wouldn't they be nude? Feral animals can wear clothes too. Even if nude is the default for them, they're still nude.

watsit said:
I do seem to recall that tags like nude and all_fours shouldn't be used for ferals and quadrupeds respectively (there are clothed_feral and on_hind_legs to denote when a normally-nude feral is clothed and a normally-all_fours quadruped character is on their back legs only). But it seems that changed at some point to say they "can" or "doesn't need to" be tagged that way (indicating it's optional? that's pretty weird).

Personally I have never tagged feral characters as nude, even quadrupeds I have never tagged as on all_fours since it breaks the purpose of said tags.
Not sure when that wiki edit was made either, but it was optional back in the days (see topic #15755 & topic #21234).

I would say that nude should not be tagged when a character is not expected to wear any clothing. Some people argue this is TWYK and violates TWYS, I respectfully disagree.
I don't want to see feral fish, insect, or eldritch_horror getting tagged as nude when it is completely unnecessary.

E.g., I put a collar on this character post #2032037 and it instantly becomes nude.

bitWolfy

Former Staff

strikerman said:
I personally do tag them with all_fours, assuming it's applicable.

You really shouldn't be tagging ferals with all_fours.

From the wiki:

This tag does not need to be used on feral creatures that normally walk on all fours.

Your approach goes against the whole purpose of that tag, which is to indicate a character getting into a very specific pose, rather than just a quadruped standing normally.

post #2034357 vs post #697302

Strikerman

Janitor

bitwolfy said:
You really shouldn't be tagging ferals with all_fours.

From the wiki:

This tag does not need to be used on feral creatures that normally walk on all fours.

Your approach goes against the whole purpose of that tag, which is to indicate a character getting into a very specific pose, rather than just a quadruped standing normally.

post #2034357 vs post #697302

I interpreted the wiki as "it's not necessary but it's still fine to add it". If the wiki's just poorly worded and I'm going against a previous consensus, then oops.

Watsit

Privileged

strikerman said:
I interpreted the wiki as "it's not necessary but it's still fine to add it".

That's definitely what it plainly says, so I can't hold it against anyone for thinking it can be added. Which is what makes it weird to me since, even if you think all_fours should be used for quadrupeds, making it optional means some people can add it and others can remove it, and they'd both be right to do so.

wat8548

Member

Personally I would say you shouldn't tag ferals with collar_only either. Where there is an apparent conflict between the literal meaning of a tag and the things that most people who search for the tag are actually looking for, the latter must prevail or the whole system becomes pointless.

TheGreatWolfgang

Privileged

wat8548 said:
Personally I would say you shouldn't tag ferals with collar_only either. Where there is an apparent conflict between the literal meaning of a tag and the things that most people who search for the tag are actually looking for, the latter must prevail or the whole system becomes pointless.

Not necessarily, looking at other *_only tags, post #876766 is shown as an example on the wiki for hat_only.
The conflict here is whether or not we should imply nude/mostly_nude to ALL posts under *_only, not whether one body type should be excluded or not.

We also have posts like post #1334389 cropping up on the nude/mostly_nude pages.

Strikerman

Janitor

bitwolfy said:
You really shouldn't be tagging ferals with all_fours.

Your approach goes against the whole purpose of that tag, which is to indicate a character getting into a very specific pose, rather than just a quadruped standing normally.

Excuse me for reviving this topic, but a thought suddenly came to mind: what about doggystyle? doggystyle feral_on_feral gives plenty of results, but since doggystyle implies all_fours, all of those posts are forced to have the tag as well.

wat8548

Member

strikerman said:
Excuse me for reviving this topic, but a thought suddenly came to mind: what about doggystyle? doggystyle feral_on_feral gives plenty of results, but since doggystyle implies all_fours, all of those posts are forced to have the tag as well.

Our sex position tags are a horrendous mess. A while ago I started a project to try to catalogue every one in current use and create a sort of flow chart model to assist with tagging, since the names are absolutely useless. (Quick: without looking it up, tell me what the rear_admiral_position looks like.) I never finished it because it turns out that, when you lay out all the possible combinations of poses that are implied by the tags that do exist, there are a lot of holes left over with no obvious tag, or multiple overlapping tags, or some poses where small distinctions either are or aren't given separate tags depending on which way the bottom is facing, etc. etc. One of the major problems which became evident is that every current sex position tag assumes anthro_on_anthro, and most break down badly when applied to different body types. For example, should two ferals in the missionary_position instead be tagged as eagle_position, whose only distinction from missionary is that the bottom has their legs_up, which is just how feral legs work all the time?

Watsit

Privileged

strikerman said:

watsit said:
Should bipeds be tagged on hind legs? If quadrupeds should be tagged with all fours when it's their normal posture, it'd make sense to do the same for bipeds' normal posture.

Normally they get tagged with standing.

Missed this, but just to say, a biped on their hind legs can be standing, crouching, bent_over, etc, and a quadruped on all fours can be standing, crouching, ass_up, etc. So if a standing biped can exclude on_hind_legs because it's their normal posture, a standing quadruped should exclude all_fours since it's their normal posture.

TheGreatWolfgang

Privileged

Just want to reiterate my concerns over the request when it gets approved, we need to consider whether or not ferals (or any other character/species not expected to wear clothing, like monsters, etc.) should be included in the *_only tags.

Current wiki stance is that any if not all characters can be tagged with *_only, which in turn means that any if not all characters can be tagged with nude (when this implication gets passed).

This would mean that (hypothetically) a post featuring a clothed man walking his dog would be tagged with nude, because a) *_only implies it, and b) the nude wiki allows it.

In my opinion, ferals should not be tagged with nude, in contrast to what the nude wiki says, as that line was added in without a proper discussion or consensus being made.

spe

Admin

thegreatwolfgang said:
Just want to reiterate my concerns over the request when it gets approved, we need to consider whether or not ferals (or any other character/species not expected to wear clothing, like monsters, etc.) should be included in the *_only tags.

Current wiki stance is that any if not all characters can be tagged with *_only, which in turn means that any if not all characters can be tagged with nude (when this implication gets passed).

This would mean that (hypothetically) a post featuring a clothed man walking his dog would be tagged with nude, because a) *_only implies it, and b) the nude wiki allows it.

In my opinion, ferals should not be tagged with nude, in contrast to what the nude wiki says, as that line was added in without a proper discussion or consensus being made.

I don’t think any specific clothing-related tags should be used for ferals. The intent of those tags are generally for people that are normally clothed. A clothed feral is already an anomaly, so clothed_feral + the tags describing the actual clothing should be all they need.

I mean, people who are searching for collar_only are not looking for a portrait of someone’s pet that has a collar. That’s clearly not the point of the tag. It may apply based on TWYS, but it’s useless and clutters the search results for collar_only.

TheGreatWolfgang

Privileged

scaliespe said:
I don’t think any specific clothing-related tags should be used for ferals. The intent of those tags are generally for people that are normally clothed. A clothed feral is already an anomaly, so clothed_feral + the tags describing the actual clothing should be all they need.

I mean, people who are searching for collar_only are not looking for a portrait of someone’s pet that has a collar. That’s clearly not the point of the tag. It may apply based on TWYS, but it’s useless and clutters the search results for collar_only.

I agree on that point, in that case, certain measures need to be taken to avoid people tagging the *_only tags with ferals.
Including a tag cleanup of every feral post the *_only tags, a rewrite for all the wiki pages to mention the exclusion, and complete removal of all feral post examples from the wiki (such as the case with boa_only, glasses_only, hat_only, etc.

As well as a rewrite for the nude wiki, since in effect, clothing-related tags should not be applied to ferals.

EDIT: Clothing-related tags as in nude, mostly_nude, partially_clothed, etc. Not specific clothing items.

Updated

TheGreatWolfgang

Privileged

strikerman said:
That's a step too far for me.

If a feral's wearing clothes, we're supposed to just ignore it?

Clothed_feral exists for a reason.

Likewise, we do not tag nude_feral since it would be redundant.
At least it was, until that line for ferals was included in the nude wiki.

TheGreatWolfgang

Privileged

strikerman said:
clothed_feral just indicates that a feral is wearing clothes. It says nothing about what specifically they're wearing.

By "clothing-related tags", I didn't mean excluding specific clothing items such as shirt, hat, etc. They can go hand-in-hand with the clothed_feral tag, and maybe the *_only tags if nude wasn't implicated.

I was focusing more towards excluding ferals from all nudity-related tags, such as nude, mostly_nude, partially_clothed, tasteful_nudity, etc.

spe

Admin

thegreatwolfgang said:
By "clothing-related tags", I didn't mean excluding specific clothing items such as shirt, hat, etc. They can go hand-in-hand with the clothed_feral tag, and maybe the *_only tags if nude wasn't implicated.

I was focusing more towards excluding ferals from all nudity-related tags, such as nude, mostly_nude, partially_clothed, tasteful_nudity, etc.

This is what I was thinking as well. If we were to allow these nudity-related tags for feral use, why would we have the clothed_feral tag? Why not clothed_anthro? Why not just feral + clothed? Because, as stated, nude is the default for ferals and it carries completely different implications than does nude when applied to any other body type. By extension, a character wearing only a collar or only a hat has a very different implication for an anthro than it does for a feral, so much so that I don’t think they should be lumped together.

Watsit

Privileged

thegreatwolfgang said:
I was focusing more towards excluding ferals from all nudity-related tags, such as nude, mostly_nude, partially_clothed, tasteful_nudity, etc.

Personally, I think mostly_nude and partially_clothed would be fine for ferals, since they imply some level of clothing being worn (i.e. clothed_feral) that's not obscuring their genitals. Tasteful_nudity I'm on the fence about. While ferals are typically nude, their genitals being exposed in a tasteful way (as opposed to a pornographic way) might be worth having a tag for.

TheGreatWolfgang

Privileged

watsit said:
Personally, I think mostly_nude and partially_clothed would be fine for ferals, since they imply some level of clothing being worn (i.e. clothed_feral) that's not obscuring their genitals. Tasteful_nudity I'm on the fence about. While ferals are typically nude, their genitals being exposed in a tasteful way (as opposed to a pornographic way) might be worth having a tag for.

I have some qualms about having exceptions for those, but also considering tags like casual_nudity, exposed, panties_aside, exhibitionism, etc., I also agree that some posts with ferals might be eligible.
E.g., say in the case where there was a feral-oriented culture where most characters are seen as clothed_ferals in public but one nude feral openly flaunts their body to others; or when a feral in lingerie is pushing aside their panties to reveal their genitals.

In those cases, I might consider it an exception for the nude-feral rule, but we will still need to exclude them from the general nude tag since anything (like a pet goldfish in jar) can be considered nude if that was still the case.