The tag alias #74832 pantiless -> no_underwear has been rejected.

Reason: I'm requesting this alias because when I checked the posts under the pantiless tag, it appears that they can go under the no underwear tag instead of on it's own. A few examples of why I think that post #4924523 post #5206921 post #4242946

EDIT: The tag alias pantiless -> no_underwear (forum #436410) has been rejected by @Grab-n-Stash.

only thing I'd say is that i'd think it shouldn't be used on posts like post #5225206 post #4924523 due to them wearing lingerie, not regular clothing, and you can expect people to not be wearing underwear in those situations.

does no_underwear include characters not wearing a bra under their shirt? because bra's implied to underwear, but it seems like this tag is just for characters, like, "going commando", and that would seem to contradict with the tag's name.

dba_afish said:
does no_underwear include characters not wearing a bra under their shirt? because bra's implied to underwear, but it seems like this tag is just for characters, like, "going commando", and that would seem to contradict with the tag's name.

From what I checked on the first few pages it seem that it does include characters with no bras under their clothing, but there are some posts that have a character with no underwear, but also have just a bra for topwear.

We have braless for no bra, should that imply no_underwear?

wandering_spaniel said:
We have braless for no bra, should that imply no_underwear?

While technically correct, I feel that this just isn't what people are actually looking for?

Additionally: If we count a bra as underwear in this case, would somebody wearing a bra but no panties make a post ineligible for the tag?

faucet said:
While technically correct, I feel that this just isn't what people are actually looking for?

Additionally: If we count a bra as underwear in this case, would somebody wearing a bra but no panties make a post ineligible for the tag?

maybe we should, uhh-- have a tag/word to use that's just for the crotch-based undergarments.

dba_afish said:
maybe we should, uhh-- have a tag/word to use that's just for the crotch-based undergarments.

I've heard underpants suggested for this

I'd expect no_underwear to mean NO underwear, not just being bottomless with a bra/corset on.

wandering_spaniel said:
I've heard underpants suggested for this

I’d still really like to do this, tbh. There are other kinds of undergarments besides bras that don’t cover the groin (like corset, though it currently implies topwear for some reason… which seems wrong).

wandering_spaniel said:
I've heard underpants suggested for this

+1

The tag alias pantiless -> no_underwear (forum #436410) has been rejected by @Grab-n-Stash.