Posted under General
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
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.
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).
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.
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?
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.
