Alright. I'm gonna ask this before I get marked as being a vandal or something...
pool #2385 is for images where "it's very likely that the character isn't wearing panties, but you can't tell for 100% sure".
That said, I am of the opinion that post #983102 does NOT belong in this pool. But, apparently for some people, seeing 90% of a girl's bare ass (and the fact that the artist himself tagged the image on pixiv with their version of "no_panties") just isn't good enough. I made a comment to start a debate on the subject, but someone re-added the pool without even bothering to reply.
Am I the only one who feels this image shouldn't belong in the pool? I know it's subjective, but, ugh. Should I just not bother taking the image out anymore?
That doesn't really matter since we simply tag such images bottomless, and if the shirt COMPLETELY covered the crotch area (+ass), we would also add no_pants (<-- see bottomless wiki).
Well, some artists will add "はいてない？" or "はいてない" to images where you can't see anything (to get people's imagination going I guess). We tag what we can (or can't) see, generally, so those images would not go into the pool/tag.
So, it's possible that she's wearing panties or a thong here, in theory. But in plenty of cases we've had a precedence of accepting the Word Of God, and they clearly intended no panties here (hence the tag). So for my money using the no_panties tag is correct here. (If it wasn't tagged though I would say it's はいてない？, there are more extreme cases of "it COULD be possible but is VERY unlikely" in that pool).
She's definitely not wearing any there. If she were wearing a thong or somesuch, we'd be able to see it at the top of her butt crack. Take into account the artist's clarification that she most definitely isn't wearing panties, and I see no room for ambiguity - it needs the no panties tag.
Also, with that much of her ass on display, I don't think rating:s is appropriate. Upped to Q.
I'd say that's too short to be a dress, it's much more likely a top with no skirt. Note the sleeveless_shirt tag and impossible_shirt. So if you wish to argue it's a dress, then you may also want to have those tags removed.
If a character is bottomless, then they would not be expected to wear panties, therefore the no_panties tag is not applicable. The fact that there is a large number of images coming up with a bottomless no_panties search would not justify that if a character is bottomless that it is can also be tagged no_panties (there are some minor exceptions though). Additionally those images under that search which are not part of those exceptions, should also be cleaned up.
It's either a slightly short version of this or a really really long wife beater I guess, I perfer the former but I suppose the argument could be made for the latter.
It's very nice of artists to shorten women's outfits so their panties are exposed all the time and we're left scratching our heads on whether something was supposed to be a dress or a shirt.
I guess given the ambiguous nature of the outfit, that the image then should be tagged both bottomless and no_panties.
You may say it's retarded, but there is a line that can exist. If you wish to ignore that line, then what you're proposing then is aliasing no_panties to bottomless.
If you don't care and didn't bother to try and understand that line that was drawn, then I'd say it's you with the problem and not the tags. I'm sure people looking at skirts would love to see plenty of the images under the dress tag, but that doesn't mean we should be going around tagging them as one and the same.
スラッシュ said: That's a retarded rule anyway. People searching no_panties want to find bottomless pictures. Different for nude, arguably, but bottomless? Yeah.
Maybe a discussion for another day.
Or you could have a case where someone has pants, skirts, or something that qualifies as a 'bottom' without panties.
NWF_Renim said: You may say it's retarded, but there is a line that can exist. If you wish to ignore that line, then what you're proposing then is aliasing no_panties to bottomless.
What? Not at all. You mean implication maybe? An implication of bottomless to no_panties, that is. That's still not what I'm saying, though, but it at least makes SOME kind of sense after what I stated. What you are saying makes zero sense. Why would you think someone searching for a dress would want to find skirts? That is utter nonsense (especially the dress/skirt thing, wtf?).
What Anelaid said is true though, of course, I mean it only for those pictures that normally would have no_panties but people didn't tag it because of it having bottomless. That's what I'm saying is silly.
Using ~no_panties ~bottomless to get both now is much more reliable than having to use no_panties -bottomless to get only no_panties if there were an implication, especially if there are multiple characters in the image.
