[REJECTED] Tag implication: naked_babydoll -> babydoll

create implication naked_babydoll -> babydoll

Link to implication

Self-explanatory.

EDIT: The tag implication naked_babydoll -> babydoll has been rejected by @NWF_Renim.

Are naked_* tags for lingerie really necessary? I mean, it's basically just a babydoll no_panties search. What's next, naked bra?

iridescent_slime said:

Are naked_* tags for lingerie really necessary? I mean, it's basically just a babydoll no_panties search. What's next, naked bra?

Never heard of this tag until now, so I'm probably in the same mindset.

Well, there are things like naked_cape and naked_suspenders when they could just be nude cape and suspenders topless, although you could argue that the latter tag requires the nipples being covered, according to the Wiki.

Also, I did find false positives in babydoll no_panties when filling the tag, pictures with more than one girl where the one with no panties is not in a babydoll.

People are way too eager to start making new naked_x tags when it doesn't make sense, and the babydoll is one of those things. Part of the appeal of the original naked_apron is because it's a nude body hidden from a single, mundane article of clothing. Babydolls and lingerie in general are made to be provocative.

Naked_cape and naked_suspenders come off to me like distinct fetishes. (The former even has a pixiv tag already.) Naked_babydoll, though, seems to be too close to the actual intended use of a babydoll to qualify as its own concept.

I have to agree with what Hillside Moose (and most of the other people) said, I vote for nuking/aliasing this tag.

Before deciding to nuke the tag, can you wait until I finish filling this tag with posts from babydoll no_panties babydoll bottomless so we can see how many false positives there are? Yes, there are two possible search combinations for this, which could raise the number of potential naked_babydoll images there are.

Because, really, the reason I think we should have this tag, is because both of these search combinations can result in images where there are multiple people and the bottomless one is not in a babydoll, and while an user with an upgraded account can add a third tag like 1girl solo to the search, it would limit the search to images with only one character, which would exclude images with two or more characters where there IS a character wearing a babydoll but no panties.

G-SANtos said:

Before deciding to nuke the tag, can you wait until I finish filling this tag with posts from babydoll no_panties babydoll bottomless so we can see how many false positives there are? Yes, there are two possible search combinations for this, which could raise the number of potential naked_babydoll images there are.

Because, really, the reason I think we should have this tag, is because both of these search combinations can result in images where there are multiple people and the bottomless one is not in a babydoll, and while an user with an upgraded account can add a third tag like 1girl solo to the search, it would limit the search to images with only one character, which would exclude images with two or more characters where there IS a character wearing a babydoll but no panties.

Trying to get around the two-tag search limitation with a combo tag, when said search is more than adequate, is not a valid reason for keeping it around.

Note that I said "adequate." Yes, you will get some false positives with multi-tag searches, but unless the margin of error is something noticeable like >25% it's not a consideration.

The tag implication naked_babydoll -> babydoll has been rejected by @NWF_Renim.