So we have a ton of different pending BURs for sorting out these gender/form clothing tags (such as nude_anthro and clothed_female) and something needs to be done about these eventually. I have been given a list of BURs that covers most of these tags (included below for reference), but I still have some issues with it and made this thread to start a discussion around it.

Issue #1

As many have pointed out before, partially_clothed is a disaster of a tag, and has an oddly specific definition that few users of the tag actually adhere to. If we were to actually keep this tag under its current definition, I believe it would need to be nuked before obtaining any more implications or aliases. The current state of the tag is unsalvageable. However, I also don't believe that the tag would remain in good shape for long if we were to do this, nor do I think that the current definition is particularly useful or worth keeping. For reference:

Partially Clothed said:
Use this tag for posts depicting a character wearing clothing that is pulled aside or partially removed.

Of course, most of the posts under this tag aren't that - it seems that people generally use this for any state of clothedness that isn't nude or fully clothed. The posts with this tag that are correct seem to be mostly due to the implications - pants_down, shorts_down, and underwear_down (though I wonder why we used the first two instead of bottomwear_down...), and one could argue that this concept is already better served by similar tags, such as undressing. We could even just create a partially_removed_clothing tag if we want to keep this concept in some form. Making the tag name really explicit about its purpose may be the only way to keep it from being mistagged.

To that end, I would like to propose a solution to salvage the tag, and that is to redefine it to match its common usage: any state of clothedness between nude and fully clothed. This would mean that it would be implied by topless, bottomless, and mostly_nude. Thus, all clothed posts could also be either partially_clothed or fully_clothed. Optionally, it could also be implied by things like underwear_only, as they may not necessarily be topless or bottomless, but they are still in a state of incomplete dress, which is a case that we currently don't have any good tag for.

Issue #2

The currently proposed BURs include implications for *_intersex tags. It has occurred to some of us that these tags are functionally quite useless and do little more than contribute significantly to tag bloat. Although no actual effort has yet been put into eliminating these tags, I would at least prefer not to further contribute to that mess by adding even more aliases and implications that will have to be undone in the future. To that end, I would suggest cutting all of those tags out of the implication trees and aliasing (clothedness)_intersex to (clothedness).

Thoughts?

We should also have a clearer tag for the intended definition. "partially_removed_clothing" should do the trick.

spe said:

Issue #2

The currently proposed BURs include implications for *_intersex tags. It has occurred to some of us that these tags are functionally quite useless and do little more than contribute significantly to tag bloat. Although no actual effort has yet been put into eliminating these tags, I would at least prefer not to further contribute to that mess by adding even more aliases and implications that will have to be undone in the future. To that end, I would suggest cutting all of those tags out of the implication trees and aliasing (clothedness)_intersex to (clothedness).

Thoughts?

How exactly is intersex useless? intersex does still apply under clothing, there are such things as camel-toes and bulges as well 'breast bumps' besides the levels of clothedness were those parts may also be fully exposed...

[clothedness]_[genders] is in general questionable but I do wonder at the reason for your specificity on intersex.

--

As for the partially clothed tag, I do also agree on the name change, in terms of the wiki only the "pulled aside" wording would have to be removed that has its origin in the fact that the original author from 11 years ago counted simply undone buttons or fasteners as partially clothed which is obviously wrong. These clothedness tags would probably benefit from a image chart in a similar manner to the one we have for the breast size wikis however.

ryu_deacon said:
How exactly is intersex useless? intersex does still apply under clothing, there are such things as camel-toes and bulges as well 'breast bumps' besides the levels of clothedness were those parts may also be fully exposed...

[clothedness]_[genders] is in general questionable but I do wonder at the reason for your specificity on intersex.

If someone doesn't want intersex characters they're going to just blacklist/negate intersex as a whole
All of the subtags that come from intersex get ridiculous quick, especially when I am sure 95% of users do not know what the tag is for and even less actually use it
I and a few other people would like to toss the tag out the window entirely, and eliminating redundant subtags is a great step in that direction

donovan_dmc said:
If someone doesn't want intersex characters they're going to just blacklist/negate intersex as a whole

which is why I questioned why just intersex and not just all the [clothedness]_[genders] tags.

I and a few other people would like to toss the tag out the window entirely, and eliminating redundant subtags is a great step in that direction

This I disagree with, as intersex serves the same purpose as tags such as mammal or multi_limb, no one is directly using these tags or is intended to be doing so and are also redundancies for categorization. And the number of subtags is also not a justification to eliminate a whole category. By the same logic your using here we could just eliminate male and female too because the subtags work just fine without the umbrella. The logic people are using to eliminate intersex could be left to run its course to the point why even have implications at all.

Also talking about excessive numbers of subtags when at the same time supporting stuff like this thing to be honest comes off as very dishonest/misleading topic #43865

PS: also your saying this "If someone doesn't want intersex characters they're going to just blacklist/negate intersex as a whole" as you and others seek to remove intersex tag completely as you also say at the end of this same reply, impairing the ability to blacklist all variants of intersex with just one tag. Is this not contradictory?

ryu_deacon said:
This I disagree with, as intersex serves the same purpose as tags such as mammal or multi_limb

I would say it would serve the same purpose as a hypothetical tag that is implied by mammal and scalie only (with avian and marine not implying anything extra). The problem I see with the tag is that gynomorph and andromorph are about as opposite as you can be with genital configurations and body type, but are contained under the same intersex tag. And at the same time, gynomorph, andromorph, herm, and maleherm are all under intersex, while male, female, and ambiguous_gender aren't under anything. It feels very imbalanced. On top of that, it creates excessive tags with every gynomorph, andromorph, herm, and maleherm tag getting an intersex variant (even worse with tag pairs, like gynomorph_penetrating_gynomorph, or gta_transformation (gynomorph-to-andromorph transformation)) that really explode the tag list in a way that doesn't happen with male, female, and ambiguous_gender.

Additionally, there have been recent concerns with "intersex" being either technically incorrect, or derogatory. Trying to change all intersex tags to a better term, should one be decided upon, would be a nightmare with all the implications currently in place.

ryu_deacon said:
Also talking about excessive numbers of subtags when at the same time supporting stuff like this thing to be honest comes off as very dishonest/misleading topic #43865

I'm not in support of that, FWIW. But even still, this problem with intersex is made worse and more difficult to handle by stuff like that, which is part of the reason why some people want to get rid of *intersex* tags to make that more practical. Or at the very least, get rid of all the *_intersex and intersex_* tags and leave just intersex itself.

lendrimujina said:
We should also have a clearer tag for the intended definition. "partially_removed_clothing" should do the trick.

partially undressed.

Regarding spe's issue #1, there's an issue with implying mostly_nude to anything that would imply clothed, because it's in this grey area where sometimes it can be clothed and sometimes it's not.

It's been tried 3 times and it has failed each time.

Now that clothing in back in fashion, I wonder how the suggestion that underwear like panties and boxers should be both bottomwear and underwear would mesh with pantsless, and whether pantsless could be implied to fully clothed in that case (or we'll have to make a distinction between different kinds of bottomwear).

ryu_deacon said:
which is why I questioned why just intersex and not just all the [clothedness]_[genders] tags.

People might actually search for the others, intersex is so broad that you may as well search the entire tag

ryu_deacon said:
By the same logic your using here we could just eliminate male and female too because the subtags work just fine without the umbrella.

..what in the strawman? How is that relevant and/or accurate in any way?

ryu_deacon said:
The logic people are using to eliminate intersex could be left to run its course to the point why even have implications at all.

The point is that having more implications makes it a monster to deal with. According to this Tag Visualizer intersex already has 319 implicatives:

48 level 1 implicatives
208 level 2 implicatives
64 level 3 implicatives
20 level 4 implicatives

This is already absoultely monsterous and would no doubt take at least 30 BURs to do anything with, not to mention aliases

ryu_deacon said:
Also talking about excessive numbers of subtags when at the same time supporting stuff like this thing to be honest comes off as very dishonest/misleading topic #43865

..how is supporting numbering character genders relevant to a useless umbrella tag?

ryu_deacon said:
PS: also your saying this "If someone doesn't want intersex characters they're going to just blacklist/negate intersex as a whole" as you and others seek to remove intersex tag completely as you also say at the end of this same reply, impairing the ability to blacklist all variants of intersex with just one tag. Is this not contradictory?

They can just blacklist each individually? This is the same argument that was brought up when cub was invalidated, and the argument itself is still just as invalid

donovan_dmc said:
They can just blacklist each individually? This is the same argument that was brought up when cub was invalidated, and the argument itself is still just as invalid

the main difference is that cub was able to be aliased up into young when the tag split. intersex is already the top-est level possible, so there's nothing to alias it to if we were to disintegrate it.

while I do believe that if we were to start the site from scratch today with our current philosophy, the tag would certainly not exist and everything would be fine, but as it is, the tag already existing, I'm not sure what we could do with it.

if we were to do something I think the furthest we ought to go is to just revoke all of its special "adjective-able noun" privileges, and leave only intersex itself and maybe the basic paring tags active.

dba_afish said:
the main difference is that cub was able to be aliased up into young when the tag split. intersex is already the top-est level possible, so there's nothing to alias it to if we were to disintegrate it.

while I do believe that if we were to start the site from scratch today with our current philosophy, the tag would certainly not exist and everything would be fine, but as it is, the tag already existing, I'm not sure what we could do with it.

if we were to do something I think the furthest we ought to go is to just revoke all of its special "adjective-able noun" privileges, and leave only intersex itself and maybe the basic paring tags active.

We could just alias all the subtags to their closest still valid tag, and everything else into intersex, nuke intersex (hopefully from blacklists as well), then give it a few months to see how often intersex actually gets used, and depending on that alias it into a lore tag (to be used as some people want) or leave it in the invalid category and just nuke it every so often if it's used directly too much

snpthecat said:
partially undressed.

Regarding spe's issue #1, there's an issue with implying mostly_nude to anything that would imply clothed, because it's in this grey area where sometimes it can be clothed and sometimes it's not.

It's been tried 3 times and it has failed each time.

I still fundamentally disagree with that. If a character is wearing clothes, they are clothed. If they are not wearing clothes, they're nude. There's really nothing more to it.

spe said:
I still fundamentally disagree with that. If a character is wearing clothes, they are clothed. If they are not wearing clothes, they're nude. There's really nothing more to it.

it's just-- it feels weird saying that a character who's wearing, like, socks_only could be validly tagged clothed_sex.

dba_afish said:
it's just-- it feels weird saying that a character who's wearing, like, socks_only could be validly tagged clothed_sex.

Well, the clothed_sex wiki explicitly excludes mostly_nude, which probably makes sense even if mostly_nude implies clothed.

My big gripe here is essentially that mostly_nude -clothing has like 20,000 results, even though (outside of the occasional mostly_nude mistag, perhaps) every one of these posts contains an article of clothing. That's just kind of ridiculous, and so easily fixable.