In regards to the wiki, I think the language may be too generalized in regards to the underwear specification. For instance, underwear includes both the camisole and the tank top, which can meet up with the panties such as in post #4010336, or be somewhat separated such as in post #3973530. For the case of the latter, I've been adding the midriff tag so that this particular differentiation can be searched. I'd like to see that stay, so I think the definition should be tweaked to exclude the combination with either the camisole or the tank top. Thoughts?
I could also see it being appropriate without other clothing (top and/or bottom) in cases where the focus is clear and direct on the midriff itself, e.g. some of the panels in post #2636605. It's an exception case, but I definitely think the tag should apply in that sort of situation.
this is really better as one of your own private searches for tag gardening rather than something needing bulk update
BrokenEagle98 said:
underwear includes both the camisole and the tank top, which can meet up with the panties such as in post #4010336, or be somewhat separated such as in post #3973530. For the case of the latter, I've been adding the midriff tag so that this particular differentiation can be searched. I'd like to see that stay, so I think the definition should be tweaked to exclude the combination with either the camisole or the tank top. Thoughts?
I added some language to this effect. I think what may make things clearer for people would be test cases/examples.
This should be cleaned manually. Midriff is frequently misused to mean the same thing as stomach, when it's supposed to be about normal clothing exposing the stomach. Midriff is to stomach as zettai ryouiki is to bare thighs.
The line about not using it with underwear means don't use it for a bra + panties set only, just as you don't use it for a bikini only.