Almost every picture of yorha_unit_no._2_type_b is of her with her leotard. So why are there so many that are tagged with panties?
Posted under Tags
Almost every picture of yorha_unit_no._2_type_b is of her with her leotard. So why are there so many that are tagged with panties?
If unfamiliar with the series, most users might just see the familiar outline of panties and tag it as such. If it's true that she wears a leotard in series, then tag it as such unless it is clear that it is panties instead. Also, it looks like she wears a highleg_leotard, so tag it as such if it meets those qualifications as well.
While we're at it, please refrain from adding android to nier_automata posts. I know the characters are "canonically" androids, but without any mechanical indication or traits it's just noise to the tag.
I was about to mention that. The robot and android tags both seem to have that problem, and 2B has now made the situation worse.
Is it worth making a new thread to discuss this? I personally don't find the information on the wikis particularly helpful, so we should probably agree on what's what for tagging purposes before doing any cleaning up.
Hillside_Moose said:
While we're at it, please refrain from adding android to nier_automata posts. I know the characters are "canonically" androids, but without any mechanical indication or traits it's just noise to the tag.
It's funny. Android 17 and 18 are cyborgs yet nobody tags them as such.
Is there an alternative tag to pantyshot that can be used in these instances where the exposure is same as descriped in the panty shot wiki just with leotard? The tag has been misapplied already in such cases. And since I brought that up, may as well put forward that panty peek could use such an alternative.
sweetpeɐ said:
Is there an alternative tag to pantyshot that can be used in these instances where the exposure is same as descriped in the panty shot wiki just with leotard? The tag has been misapplied already in such cases. And since I brought that up, may as well put forward that panty peek could use such an alternative.
Not sure that's needed. Panties are a clothing item not meant to be seen, so tagging those instances makes sense. Leotards, swimsuits, buruma, briefs and other similar "underclothing" are meant to be seen, and so the same wouldn't apply IMO...
BrokenEagle98 said:
Not sure that's needed. Panties are a clothing item not meant to be seen, so tagging those instances makes sense. Leotards, swimsuits, buruma, briefs and other similar "underclothing" are meant to be seen, and so the same wouldn't apply IMO...
I don't see why it would not apply. She wears leotard essentially as panties so exposure would be the same as a pantyshot just with another tag. It evokes roughly the same interest and has similar appeal. Also the part exposed is intended to cover the crotch and genitals in the same manner panties do, which contrasts from swimsuits burumas et al.
It's proving actually pretty hard to make the judgement whether she's wearing panties or just leotard.
If there's just a peak such as in post #2615225 or post #2620379 I tag as white leotard. Additionally I think such images should be tagged as leotard_peak or leotard_shot just as they would be tagged panty peak or pantyshot if they were panties.
Then there is this such post: post #2608053. You can only see the garment on her ass, not on her waist so it could be either panties or leotard. By the principle of tag what you see it seems to me it should be tagged panties despite the fact that we "know" what they're supposed to be, though should it be tagged leotard despite this? To me tagging it panties instead based on what is visibile is similar to the test on pantyhose. Here is another such one post #2605017.
When the garment starts going up to her navel or you can see a glimpse up at her shoulders or stomach it's a lot easier but in many cases there's just too much ambiguity. It would be nice to have a test to determine what to tag. Also, can her leotard be considered underwear?