Danbooru

Pointless nearly_naked_* tags

Posted under General

I think it started with nearly_naked_apron, but other nearly_naked_* tags have been created without prior discussion after that.

In general, a naked_* tag means that a character is basically naked, but wears a single piece of clothing which can lead to them not qualifying for nude anymore. Otherwise, we'd simply tag them all nude + *. (Exceptions are being naked and covered/wrapped in ribbons, bandages, chocolate, which also use the tag name naked_*)
(BTW, naked_scarf is also pointless, since it is just nude scarf)

Now, to the nearly_naked_* tags.
For example, take nearly_naked_shirt. The condition is wearing a shirt and underwear. How is this any different from the no_pants tag?

Or nearly_naked_cape. Which is cape bikini or cape underwear_only

S1eth said:
For example, take nearly_naked_shirt. The condition is wearing a shirt and underwear. How is this any different from the no_pants tag?

Before proposing to delete the tag, we should have made sure they actually were properly tagged. A lot of them were not tagged with either no_pants or bottomless (whichever applied) and some were not even tagged with shirt or the appropriate upper body clothing item (since the tag didn't imply shirt). So after deletion, they no longer could be properly searched. I've gone through the post changes and done what I can, but it would have been a little easier to do before a mass delete.

Or nearly_naked_cape. Which is cape bikini or cape underwear_only

It's a little unclear if underwear_only applies if a character is wearing a cape (since the wiki says "wearing nothing but underwear" and only exception it gives is for legwear). I'm OK with tagging it on caped characters, but it needs to be noted in the wiki so that people aren't afraid to tag it and those images can be easily searched. For stuff like jackets, coats, and cardigans that cover more of the front side of the character, a new tag like I proposed in topic #9880 would be beneficial.

1