Posted under Tags
Someone just created a badly-named tag just shoes to describe nude characters wearing nothing but shoes. It has less than 20 posts. I think it's redundant but can cater the 2-tags-only-search blue users.
What do you think about this issue? Should it be nuked, or aliased into a more general naked footwear, just like other similar tags like naked apron?
World_Funeral said:
Someone just created a badly-named tag just shoes to describe nude characters wearing nothing but shoes. It has less than 20 posts. I think it's redundant but can cater the 2-tags-only-search blue users.
What do you think about this issue? Should it be nuked, or aliased into a more general naked footwear, just like other similar tags like naked apron?
There are a few situations where a nude + shoes search would produce unwanted results such as nude characters with shoes removed or a completely nude character with other clothed people wearing shoes. I think keeping the tag is a good idea, but it should definitely be renamed to match similarly-themed tags if we do. Naked footwear sounds like a good name. We could also use footwear only, but the "only" tags aren't exclusive to near-nudity (for example, bikini top only can be used with bottom wear such as pants).
BUR #17771 has been rejected.
rename just_shoes -> naked_footwear
Blank_User said:
There are a few situations where a nude + shoes search would produce unwanted results such as nude characters with shoes removed or a completely nude character with other clothed people wearing shoes. I think keeping the tag is a good idea, but it should definitely be renamed to match similarly-themed tags if we do. Naked footwear sounds like a good name. We could also use footwear only, but the "only" tags aren't exclusive to near-nudity (for example, bikini top only can be used with bottom wear such as pants).
Thanks for your suggestions and thoughts as well. It is going to be useful in the future for any nude characters with only footwear. But is it better to alias instead of renaming in order to prevent others making similar tag?
World_Funeral said:
BUR #17771 has been rejected.
rename just_shoes -> naked_footwear
Thanks for your suggestions and thoughts as well. It is going to be useful in the future for any nude characters with only footwear. But is it better to alias instead of renaming in order to prevent others making similar tag?
Sorry, I was thinking of renaming in a general sense, not the BUR function. I don't think it's likely anything else would be named with that tag, so an alias is probably appropriate.
VR-Man said:
Feels like this tag is just a fetish tag.
Although I don't know how useful it's going to be if it was repurposed as anon-fetishregular tag.
Well, most naked_* tags are fetish tags. There's quite a few relevant results in shoes nude -shoes_removed so a tag seems valuable, but I think a rename is better. "just shoes" is a garbage name that doesn't really communicate its intent, and I don't know if we want that as a permanent alias. I can't imagine anybody except the original creator will think to make it, and we can infinitely nuke it if need be.
I've been thinking a few months ago about a potential naked legwear tag, but I never got around to propose it.
Would it make sense to have it rather than naked footwear, to cover instances such as naked boots or naked thighhighs? Or would it be too broad?
Username_Hidden said:
I've been thinking a few months ago about a potential naked legwear tag, but I never got around to propose it.
Would it make sense to have it rather than naked footwear, to cover instances such as naked boots or naked thighhighs? Or would it be too broad?
Naked legwear such as thighhighs would fall under the purview of nude, which has the "don't use with naked outfits" clause. Its wiki, interestingly, does not mention anything about footwear, which is why I'm open to naked footwear.
Not sure if we want to revise the nude wiki or maybe free some of the common arm/legwears (namely thighhighs) from the catch-all dungeon it is currently, but that's an issue for later.
Unbreakable said:
Barefoot is supposed to be used together with nude when applicable which would make searching for the opposite of this concept easy at least, not sure if this justifies the existence of this tag.
Negating barefoot can still bring up posts with the feet out of frame, as well as mermaids, lamias, and other legless humanoids. There are also many posts tagged nude with most of the body out of frame, with some only showing the shoulders, though I'm not sure if the nude tag is appropriate for those posts. There are many more of these kinds of posts than what just shoes was intended for.
Aliasing this to naked footwear would make sense to me, would be in line with other naked_* tags (which I think mostly justify their own existence as notable and not-so-easy to query without a tag, particularly with multiple characters). It would also allow it to cover shoes / boots / sandals etc, which I don't know that there's much value of distinguishing here.
-1 to naked footwear because the other naked_x tags are not x_only tags. See something like naked_jacket thighhighs for example. We use those tags as nude + x, and nude allows other clothing so long as the torso and crotch are exposed.
Is it a problem that the naked_* tags can stack? Maybe the definition of "just shoes" would be a bit changed, but I don't see why we couldn't have naked_footwear naked_scarf posts just as we have naked_coat naked_scarf posts right now.
To me, naked hoodie should apply even when the character is otherwise fully clothed (i.e., only when clearly no shirt beneath the hoodie), so not a fan of naked footwear.
It's a fetish thing about the visible collarbone and closer fit, not just a total overlap with oversized clothes.
Updated
LQ said:
To me, naked hoodie should apply even when the character is otherwise fully clothed (i.e., only when clearly no shirt beneath the hoodie), so not a fan of naked footwear.
That is extremely counterintuitive.
Yeah, the name naked hoodie already makes it sound like some meme clothing trend like a virgin killer sweater. And the wikis for various naked_* tags are inconsistent; some say "basically no clothing beneath it" (implying only no layers below that one but clothes on other parts of the body are fine), others say "no other clothing".
Perhaps there could be a separate topic to rename them or add a new tag, or at least fix the wikis. I just want to be able to search "naked under outerwear", whether it's no underwear beneath pants, or no shirt beneath jackets and hoodies. I.e., using outerwear—clothing designed to be worn over other garments—as the only layer on that part of the body. No shirt, no panties, no bra, and no male underwear sort of work. There's also no undershirt, but that seems kind of stupid.
Updated
LQ said:
To me, naked hoodie should apply even when the character is otherwise fully clothed (i.e., only when clearly no shirt beneath the hoodie), so not a fan of naked footwear.
That would be nearly naked hoodie, if we follow the other nearly_naked_* tags.
LQ said:
Yeah, the name naked hoodie already makes it sound like some meme clothing trend like a virgin killer sweater. And the wikis for various naked_* tags are inconsistent; some say "basically no clothing beneath it" (implying only no layers below that one but clothes on other parts of the body are fine), others say "no other clothing".
I meant you can't call it "naked" if they're otherwise fully dressed but not wearing a shirt or bra. If a character is wearing pants, they're not naked, or nearly naked. That should just count for no shirt or no bra.
Username_Hidden said:
That would be nearly naked hoodie, if we follow the other nearly_naked_* tags.
Most of them don't have wikis but based on what's in them, "nearly naked" means wearing underwear, not "otherwise fully clothed."
Naked_x should require that subject would otherwise qualify for nude, and nearly_naked_x meaning they're only wearing underwear beneath the the relevant srticle of clothing.
Maybe it should be called "naked with hoodie". "Naked hoodie" really makes the framing of the tag sound isolated to just that article of clothing or that part of the body.
@Username_Hidden said:
That would be nearly naked hoodie, if we follow the other nearly_naked_* tags.
I don't think so. post #6437744 is a naked hoodie to me, which is pretty unrevealing aside from the hoodie. Nearly naked attire isn't very modest.
LQ said:
I don't think so. post #6437744 is a naked hoodie to me, which is pretty unrevealing aside from the hoodie. Nearly naked attire isn't very modest.
I side with blindVigil on this issue, but even if we did accept the premise of naked hoodie applying to otherwise fully-clothed characters, this post still wouldn't qualify because there's no strong evidence she isn't wearing something else underneath. And I don't mean underwear; there are plenty of shirt styles that don't cover the collarbone, including simple t-shirts. If posts like this qualify for naked hoodie, then the tag will be almost useless because it will be flooded with G-rated posts with modestly-dressed characters and make it much harder to find the fetish posts it's meant for.
Updated
