Aliasing shirtless -> topless.

Reason: It's basically the same thing, right?

Ehhh...not really

I'd argue that topless specifically refers to women while shirtless would probably be more applicable to men.

I think its a distinction worth either preserving or, perhaps, instituting

Edit: Examining shirtless it does seem to almost exclusively involve males, and all teh female examples really should just be tagged topless

For clarification, topless includes the bra, right?
If that's so, then it shouldn't be used for cases where the woman isn't wearing a shirt, but is wearing a bra.

I've had to educate people that the bottomless tag is applicable to images where a character is missing bottomwear (pants, skirt, etc.), but has some kind of covering on the crotch (panties, swimsuit, etc.).

However, it seems that everyone is in agreement that the topless tag is used to show women completely bare from the waist up, bra and all.

I would rather have topless follow the same guidelines as bottomless, where women are missing their shirt, but still have underwear on; they are still technically topless, and if you don't want the bra, then a negation search is just as easy. I don't know if it's too late to change the definition and start re-educating people though.

I sort of agree with this definition, and I do ascribe to Hillside Moose's version of bottomless. However these are among some of the most well established tags on Danbooru. I don't know that changing the definition would be beneficial, or even possible given how unlikely it is anyone would read the wiki for such a common tag.

With the new sidebar wiki it's easier to redefine tags. With the current system they don't have any choice but to see them, if they actually bother to read them is another matter.

I think the problem with redefining topless is that it's not just danbooru taggers that expect topless to mean bare breasts. That's just how it's been used in every situation and context I've come across.

It was easier to redefine bottomless because it's not a term used nearly as much. Well, outside danbooru.

I'm having a REALLY hard time accepting the definition of topless as including a bra, especially after post #636330. I feel that definition would too easily expand to include all bikini tops, where there obviously IS a top present. What, a bikini top and a bra aren't visually or functionally equivalent?

I also disagree with this silliness that states shirtless is the male equivalent of topless. What the heck is that all about?

I submit that a move for greater clarity is in order. To wit:

Female Shirtless = includes wearing of bras and bikini tops, may need to imply wearing of shorts, skirts or pants. Possibly outwear such as jackets or coats.

Female Topless = no bras or bikini tops, no outerwear, may include smaller articles such as scarves or towels.

Male Shirtless = no shirts; may include outerwear such as jackets and coats.

Male Topless = see Female Topless.

Hillside_Moose said:
I've had to educate people that the bottomless tag is applicable to images where a character is missing bottomwear (pants, skirt, etc.), but has some kind of covering on the crotch (panties, swimsuit, etc.)

That isn't how I originally intended it - which was a counterpart to topless (forum #15200). I don't think there was ever any consensus on a change other than NWF Remin rewriting the wiki (forum #26144).

I still hold the same position I always have. Bottomless should mean nothing covering the bottom (panties included). Topless should mean nothing covering the top (bra included). I shrug.

Thats what I think as well.

Even with such a seemingly "clear cut" definition, it's always going to filled with images tagged incorrectly, since some define bottomless to be "no panties" and tag it based on that, even if they are wearing skirts or such.

Frankly I rather like it to refer exclusive to outer wear, removing that definition and only applying cases where there are also no panties would generate a huge loss of data on a specific depiction of characters that are still wearing panties or a swimsuit without lower body outerwear.

Could we have...
shirtless : topless :: pantsless : bottomless ?

"pantsless" is a bit awkward, but a tad lulzy, though if there's a better term for "missing outerwear on the bottom half", then by all means.

I'll just copy and paste what I said 6 months ago:

NWF_Renim said:
Unlike topless where you could have an alternative tag shirtless (seems to be used nearly almost only for males though) to cover the middle ground, bottomless doesn't have such a catchall tag. If you said pantsless or skirtless the actual appearance of female characters in either would be identical, but you'd be making the assumption that you knew what the character was wearing beforehand (also note women don't only wear skirts).

If someone sees a girl in a school uniform without the skirt, people are going to most likely tag it "skirtless." It might seem reasonable, except that being skirtless would be identical in appearance to pantsless. In fact most people would likely use skirtless for women, which is making the assumption that women only wear skirts.

T5J8F8 said:
Could we have...
shirtless : topless :: pantsless : bottomless ?

"pantsless" is a bit awkward, but a tad lulzy, though if there's a better term for "missing outerwear on the bottom half", then by all means.

What this guy said. We can just alias pantsless and skirtless together in some way, they are functionally equivalent. Probably towards pantsless to make it a unisex tag?

I guess that might be reasonable, though can't say I really like the term pantsless *shrug* not an issue that matters.

legwearless? Maybe no_legwear, but then it wouldn't match with shirtless. (Would it be worth bringing up the terminology of down_blouse?)

Ummmm, I don't think that we are quite settled on the matter of topless versus shirtless...? After reading the recent replies I still feel that each of these terms is quite specific, and cannot easily be differentiated just by gender...

Yes, there may very well be massive volumes of mistagged pictures if we ever reach a new definition consensus, but at least that allows us to move forward.

I see I quoted something without reading it properly. My actual "stamp of approval" goes towards shirtless being without shirt (but perhaps with other items such as lingerie) while topless being nude from the waist up. Unisex.

Same with the bottom part.

スラッシュ said:
My actual "stamp of approval" goes towards shirtless being without shirt (but perhaps with other items such as lingerie) while topless being nude from the waist up. Unisex.

Same with the bottom part.

I think you and I are on the same page.

スラッシュ said:
My actual "stamp of approval" goes towards shirtless being without shirt (but perhaps with other items such as lingerie) while topless being nude from the waist up. Unisex.

Same with the bottom part.

That's how I've always used it outside of Danbooru too and I don't think I've ever seen "topless" refer to anything but a bare upper body. So I agree with this too.

Hmm, in my mind bottomless is fine including panties with no skirt or pants, topless requires a bare torso that would induce public indecency (so it doesn't include shirtless males, or bra wearing women), shirtless is fine both for bare torsoed men and women wearing a bra but no shirt.

I think that's mostly our pre-existing usage of the terms, but there is definitely a double standard there as far as panties vs. bra is concerned and as far as men vs women topless is concerned.

I don't like pantless as a term for "bottomless with panties". Rather no_pants would be better, which is a tag we already have. The pants / skirt issue is troubling too, but legwearless sounds terrible. I wouldn't even consider a skirt legwear. A skirt covers the legs, but you wear it around your waist, not on your legs.

If we need something along these lines, perhaps we should consider the japanese haitenai which basically says "not wearing lower-body clothing", though the usage on pixiv and the like tend to be more in line with our no_panties rather than what we are trying to describe here.

Shinjidude said:
I think that's mostly our pre-existing usage of the terms, but there is definitely a double standard there as far as panties vs. bra is concerned and as far as men vs women topless is concerned.

I don't see the double standard in panties vs. bra because I don't personally see panties present as bottomless. You do accept panties as bottomless, therefore you see a double standard. :-)

I don't see a double standard in men-topless versus women-topless. I see only a coincidence that men-shirtless also happens to equate to men-topless, given that Western men tend not to wear anything beneath their shirts.

Argh, I hate the pantsless/no_pants proposal. It's going to be confusing as hell together with no_panties. Can't you people just say trousers when you mean trousers?

Probably an American English / British English distinction, but I don't know that I've really ever used the word "trousers" in a natural conversation.

Except with Japanese "パンツ"/"pantsu", I don't know that anyone would ever confuse "pants" with "panties" either.

I don't have any specific problem with "trousers" it just sounds odd and stilted to me. Just my two cents.

As for no_pants, it's a tag we've had forever.

Shinjidude said:
If we need something along these lines, perhaps we should consider the japanese haitenai which basically says "not wearing lower-body clothing", though the usage on pixiv and the like tend to be more in line with our no_panties rather than what we are trying to describe here.

Haitenai is actually often put on pictures where they even just suspect that the girl is not wearing panties (even if they are wearing other things, such as skirts). But it might be worth considering this tag into this discussion, anyway.

Anyway, I think no_pants is fine. And yeah that is an American vs. British English thing. American pants = trousers, UK pants = underwear.

re: buruma question below this post (don't want to spam), I don't think so. You're not "supposed" to wear pants if you're wearing buruma.

Quick question for clarity: no pants doesn't apply if they're wearing buruma (or something much like them), does it?

On its own, I wouldn't think so. Although things like buruma or bike_shorts are often worn under skirts, they are outer garments of their own right, so wearing pants or a skirt on top of them shouldn't really be expected. The no_pants tag only applies where pants should be expected, but aren't present.

Now if someone was wearing the only the upper half of a serafuku and buruma, I'm not sure. There, a specific lower garment is expected and missing. I'm not sure if that would prompt a special case or not.

Shinjidude said:
Probably an American English / British English distinction, but I don't know that I've really ever used the word "trousers" in a natural conversation.

Except with Japanese "パンツ"/"pantsu", I don't know that anyone would ever confuse "pants" with "panties" either.

Here, we use "trousers" and "underpants", and the latter can be shorted to "pants" - I know I was confused when I first heard trousers called pants on some American TV show as a child.

Bu...Wait... Wouldn't they be "undertrousers"? And if a pants/pants is/are part of trousers, then is the non-leg part considered the pant/pants, and thus "pant legs" would be the extension of the pant/pants?

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, "pants" comes from "pantaloons" which were named for a French (originally Italian) theatrical character and consisted of tights. "Pant" is a slightly older word that also came pantaloons, and meant one leg of a set of pantaloons.

"Trousers" came from an Irish word for "close-fitting shorts".

I wouldn't say they are related as parts of each other. Also neither one originally described clothing particularly close to what we now call pants or trousers.

Ironically both of them referred to things that nowadays might be considered undergarments (tights, and short shorts respectively).