Wiki: nude & exceptions

Saduharta said:

S1eth is a higher level user than you, and he's the one who made the exception, so I'll stick with him on that for now. Perhaps it could use a rewording though.

Lets not get in to user ranks unless it's an admin making a decision on the matter.

The bottomless tag does state in the gray area that some of those tags, like panty_pull, only count towards bottomless after a certain degree of removal from the torso (in the gray area it defines it as complete removal from the crotch area). Also skirts with no_panties after having been lifted to the waist or above. As topless is the counterpart of bottomless it would make sense as well that only a certain degree of removal from the torso should count as topless as well, though as to what degree is up for debate. Personally, I would still consider it "worn" in examples like post #193773, as it is still on her upper body and not removed from it. Also I'd still consider the skirt "worn" in not applying the nude tag for things like post #post #571371, just my view on it.

All I meant by that is that I personally was counting S1eth's quote there as something valid to look into based on that, not that he was more correct or not. And like I said, the definition I gave probably needed to be reworded.

In the end, it's like you said with that particular issue being somewhat of a grey area, with certain degrees of removal being counted as "worn" still or not. The original point, in that exception I gave for the wiki example, was that there even IS a degree that an item of clothing can be on a character's person, but be removed to such an extent so as not to be counted as worn anymore, for the purposes of nude/topless/bottomless. I'm just not sure the best way to word that grey-area-exception I suppose.

Saduharta said:

All I meant by that is that I personally was counting S1eth's quote there as something valid to look into based on that, not that he was more correct or not. And like I said, the definition I gave probably needed to be reworded.

It didn't come off that way, at all.

That aside, I may have misinterpreted your proposed exception. I thought it was a much broader exception than it seems to be on reread. I'd clarify with something like "(i.e. no longer on the torso)," and that's fine.

BCI_Temp said:

It didn't come off that way, at all.

My sincere apologies then.

And "no longer on the torso" is a good idea to tack on at the least.

- Clothing that is on a character's person, but isn't being worn. IE; If their clothing is pulled off/aside to such an extent that it is no longer on the torso (from neck to crotch) of the character's body.

Sounds good to me like that, then. Objection withdrawn.

(Oh, and no hard feelings about the rank thing. Communicating tone without voice is hard.)

All right, I changed the wiki around to be a little more comprehensive for now, going by the nude = uncovered torso definition. I may very well be missing some exceptions, so if anyone sees anything missing or incorrect feel free to change it around.

On a separate note, I wasn't sure if it required bringing up a separate thread for this, but I thought here might be appropriate; based on the definitions being as they are, I'd suggest the following implications;

- add naked_paint -> nude alongside the already existing naked_chocolate implication.
- also add naked_necktie -> nude and naked_sleeves -> nude implications, since by definition both cases count as nude anyways. Could get rid of the tags entirely (after all, there are no tags for other nude exceptions such as nude_thighhigh or nude_gloves), but I can see those being legitimate searches.
- Of note, unsure if an implication for nude_scarf would warrant the same treatment; nominally it fits in the same accessories exception, but scarves tend to be more volumous and more often used for convenient_censoring, leading to a possibility of them being considered as covering. I'd leave that up to others opinions.

Edit: as a separate question, should the definition of nude on the torso really include the back? The area between the neck and the top of the buttocks being covered on the back doesn't seem to really be integral to being nude to me; And half the time the area is covered, in female characters, with hair anyways. And certainly long_hair doesn't automatically exclude a character from being nude.

naked_necktie

Where did that come from!?
Please, can we just purge that tag. Just search for nude necktie.

S1eth said:

Where did that come from!?
Please, can we just purge that tag. Just search for nude necktie.

Not that I created that tag, but is there a particular reason why it should be purged? I mean, anymore so than naked_sleeves. Or maybe both should simply be purged rather than implied. Just curious.

Saduharta said:

Not that I created that tag, but is there a particular reason why it should be purged? I mean, anymore so than naked_sleeves. Or maybe both should simply be purged rather than implied. Just curious.

What would happen if a nude character wears sleeves and a necktie? Would you then tag nude naked_necktie necktie naked_sleeves detached_sleeves? Or do you tag nothing?

A tag like naked_shirt doesn't consider any other accessories that are not designed to cover the torso, so you can have a naked_shirt character wearing gloves, shoes, socks, necktie, etc.
but naked_sleeves, naked_necktie, etc. seem like a lot of tag redundancy to me.