Usage and gardening of the midriff tag

While gardening mistags, I stumbled upon a bigger amount of mistags regarding the midriff tag.
Midriff is a tag, that should be used, when a character is wearing "normal" clothes, that still show the stomach like evazion clarified in forum #170162.
Anyway, the usage of the tag is a complete mess right now. Searching the midriff tag, there is a high amount of images like:

A lot of these are mistagged images of bikinis with midriff, but there is also a good amount of midriff nude, midriff topless, midriff bottomless.
Of course the tag is a very usefull fetish-tag, that alot of users like and probably use a lot of times. This is why I'm not asking for a rename or a nuke or anything else, but for some users with alot of time to maybe garden the tag a bit. This also means sending DMs to users that frequently misuse the tag, so that they learn the correct usage.

Before gardening the midriff tag, I do think we need to clarify what it should be used for. While anything with bottomless, nude, topless, underwear and bikini-only are of course a no-go, I still think that it's not really clear to everyone.
For example: Is this midriff?
post #5983790
post #6680103
post #6679730
post #6678418
post #6675209
post #6674854

Some of them are of course correct while looking at the clothing, but the Midriff wiki also states, that it should be used when the stomach is "partially" exposed by clothing. Most images are simply bare-full stomaches, like post #6679731. Evazion compared the midriff tag to ZR and I think he's correct, that the shown stomach should be way smaller to make the tag more usefull.
The other question is, what kind of clothing is still midriff worthy? A microskirt that fully shows the panties or bikini isn't what I would want to see searching the tag. Or a very short crop top.
I believe that something like post #6680209 is a good example of what I understand of the midriff tag.

Midriff wiki:

When the stomach is partially exposed by clothing.

Use this tag when there are regular clothes above (e.g. a crop top) and below (e.g. pants) the stomach, but the stomach is bare or visible beneath see-through clothing. The clothing over and above must not be underwear or a bikini.

Anyway, I'm not a midriff connoisseur, so I hope that some of the connoisseurs are triggered to react to this topic.

I am of the belief that this tag needs to be different enough from just using 'stomach' and not loose its granularity. For that I echo the sentiment Evazion has about it being akin to ZR.

Some cleavage might be okay in some cases but generally what I want to see when I look at midriff is JUST the waist.

As it stands, it's use seems to be that of another tag to pad the count, whenever stomach and not underwear only are shown.

I noticed the same and began gardening it a couple weeks ago (with this search, in case someone wants to pitch in) but stopped until now because the amount of mistags is completely ridiculous. Over 12k results for the above search, which may not even be exhaustive. If we want to save this tag it needs to be turned into an off shoulder style, 1984 dictatorship with DMails and neutrals because it seems half our site equates midriff to be a stomach synonym as a knee-jerk reaction.

As far as reforming the guidelines goes: I agree with the parallel to zettai ryouiki; midriff should be a roughly rectangular and stout area of exposed skin, if you can see more than one or two inches above the navel it’s not “midriff”. I also think the clause allowing sports bras in the tag should be removed, for the purpose of tagging midriff they look the same as bikini tops.

P.S. post #6674854 is a miniskirt and bikini top, it should have never gotten the tag. Most of the rest are sports bras which I mentioned above.

I haven't been interacting a lot with the midriff tag; so i'm gonna ask, for example post #6678548 is technically a bikini, but because of the high bikini skirt and the looks of the bikini top, the exposed area seems less ridiculous to tag midriff to me, am i wrong?

I took care of some of the really obvious ones (midriff with nude/completely nude, for example).

If midriff doesn't apply to fully exposed stomachs, then we should probably create a tag specifically for the cases when the character is wearing a top that covers the bottom of the breasts (or maybe showing a slight amount of underboob at most) but still exposes the entire stomach. The stomach tag isn't specific enough since it also applies to nude characters, and there are plenty of stomach-baring outfits that wouldn't fall under bikini or bra.

Mayhem-Chan said:

I haven't been interacting a lot with the midriff tag; so i'm gonna ask, for example post #6678548 is technically a bikini, but because of the high bikini skirt and the looks of the bikini top, the exposed area seems less ridiculous to tag midriff to me, am i wrong?

I agree that it looks midriff-y, but allowing bikinis in midriff may prove to be a big can of worms because our average tagger is too stupid to really think about the amount of exposed skin. I believe an all-or-nothing, uniform approach would be best, but if we get an admin opinion otherwise I wouldn’t really fight it.

Blank_User said:
…

Theoretically you can search stomach -nude for the same results, so I’m not sure I see value in what you’re describing. Are there really that many false positives/negatives? Nude or not stomach is stomach, and there’s no visual difference in the stomach of post #6680755 versus post #6680656.

BobTheBuilder_v1 said:

I agree that it looks midriff-y, but allowing bikinis in midriff may prove to be a big can of worms because our average tagger is too stupid to really think about the amount of exposed skin. I believe an all-or-nothing, uniform approach would be best, but if we get an admin opinion otherwise I wouldn’t really fight it.

I think we can ignore edge cases like these and focus on obvious mistags while still stating midriff should not be used with bikinis. The tag's focus won't be significantly affected whether the tag stays or not. On the other hand, if we removed restrictions on bikinis to allow this post, we'll probably end up with more micro bikinis in midriff searches. An uncompromising user that removes the tag from edge cases won't do nearly as much harm.

In other words, we should keep the absolute statements in the wiki, but that doesn't mean we have to enforce 100% compliance.

BobTheBuilder_v1 said:

Theoretically you can search stomach -nude for the same results, so I’m not sure I see value in what you’re describing. Are there really that many false positives/negatives? Nude or not stomach is stomach, and there’s no visual difference in the stomach of post #6680755 versus post #6680656.

There are a few more tags you would need to exclude to make that search work, including topless, nipples, naked shirt, micro bikini, micro bra, underboob (remember I said a little at most), and probably others I can't think of right now. Also, there might be some users that want to see a fully exposed stomach without much skin exposure above it (notice the clear border formed in post #6680755 and contrast with the breasts hanging over in post #6680656). Unless I'm overthinking the "partially exposed" part of the wiki and cases like post #6680755 could qualify for midriff after all?

Edit: I'm thinking of posts like post #6023875, which is clearly outerwear but only goes down to just below the breasts (just pretend she's wearing regular pants for argument's sake).

For everyone who didn't read the wiki, it was changed since yesterday. It now reads:

Midriff
A moderately-sized rectangular gap between clothing that exposes the character's stomach. With waistline bottomwear the gap should not exceed 2-3 inches above the navel line, though it can stretch to accommodate high-waist clothing.

Use midriff when there are regular clothes above (e.g. a crop top) and below (e.g. pants) the stomach, but the stomach is bare or visible beneath see-through clothing. Bikinis, bras, and panties invalidate this tag unless they're visible beneath normal clothing.

Don't use this tag if the character is topless, bottomless, nude, or wearing only underwear or a bikini. exceptions include some underwear worn as outerwear, such as sports bras, camisoles, tank tops worn with panties, or similar.

Often goes with navel and stomach.

I'm fine with making the wiki more clear, but I just want to note, that no user will take a ruler to measure the gap between the navel and the clothing. Such specific wiki-rules always failed.

I also wanted to mention, that there are some images for midriff upper_body like post #6676789 where you can't see the lower clothing (and sometimes not even a wider part of the stomach. The older wiki and the new one were both clear, that the tag should be used when "there are regular clothes above and below", so I don't think such images should be tagged as midriff. But I'm open for another opinion.

Nacha said:

For everyone who didn't read the wiki, it was changed since yesterday. It now reads:

I'm fine with making the wiki more clear, but I just want to note, that no user will take a ruler to measure the gap between the navel and the clothing. Such specific wiki-rules always failed.

I also wanted to mention, that there are some images for midriff upper_body like post #6676789 where you can't see the lower clothing (and sometimes not even a wider part of the stomach. The older wiki and the new one were both clear, that the tag should be used when "there are regular clothes above and below", so I don't think such images should be tagged as midriff. But I'm open for another opinion.

Looks good, but I am concerned taggers may take the "regular clothes" part too literally and not use the tag on outerwear that shows the correct amount of skin but no one would actually wear in real life such as post #4355324.

Nacha said:

I'm fine with making the wiki more clear, but I just want to note, that no user will take a ruler to measure the gap between the navel and the clothing. Such specific wiki-rules always failed.

I don’t expect anyone to, I added that more so users can have an approximation (which is why I used the word “approximation” initially, I must have revised it out) of what’s good and bad. If it’s too hard to visualize I can put some examples and/or MC Paint some magic into the wiki later.

I also wanted to mention, that there are some images for midriff upper_body like post #6676789 where you can't see the lower clothing (and sometimes not even a wider part of the stomach. The older wiki and the new one were both clear, that the tag should be used when "there are regular clothes above and below", so I don't think such images should be tagged as midriff. But I'm open for another opinion.

If midriff is the gap between two pieces of clothing then it’s logically impossible to have midriff with only one piece visible. I don’t think it’s contentious, but I’ll wait a little to add this clause.

Blank User said:
I am concerned taggers may take the "regular clothes" part too literally and not use the tag on outerwear that shows the correct amount of skin but no one would actually wear in real life such as post #4355324.

Added a blurb about fantasy clothing.

Replied on accident again. Mobile sucks.

Have we decided on whether sports bras still qualify for midriff? Paragraphs 2 and 3 in the wiki currently contradict each other on this matter.

Nacha said:

For everyone who didn't read the wiki, it was changed since yesterday. It now reads:

I'm fine with making the wiki more clear, but I just want to note, that no user will take a ruler to measure the gap between the navel and the clothing. Such specific wiki-rules always failed.

I also wanted to mention, that there are some images for midriff upper_body like post #6676789 where you can't see the lower clothing (and sometimes not even a wider part of the stomach. The older wiki and the new one were both clear, that the tag should be used when "there are regular clothes above and below", so I don't think such images should be tagged as midriff. But I'm open for another opinion.

I agree that tagging midriff on posts like post #6676789 is like tagging zettai ryouiki on posts where you can't see the top of the thighhighs.

I am also skeptical on the usage of measurements as guidelines, even as approximations. I think a better way to put it would be to use proportions visible on the image, the same way hair length tags are set; something like the vertical length of exposed midriff vs length covered by the clothing

Blank_User said:

Have we decided on whether sports bras still qualify for midriff? Paragraphs 2 and 3 in the wiki currently contradict each other on this matter.

The meaning of paragraph 2 was standard bras, not sports bras. I’ll make that more clear. Sports bras are considered outerwear in many places so I’m not against it, as long as a not unreasonable gap is shown like post #6680913.

Mayhem-Chan said:

I think a better way to put it would be to use proportions visible on the image, the same way hair length tags are set; something like the vertical length of exposed midriff vs length covered by the clothing

Such as “the total amount of exposed skin should equal no more than half the stomach’s surface”?

BobTheBuilder_v1 said:

Such as “the total amount of exposed skin should equal no more than half the stomach’s surface”?

Yes, something like that sounds reasonable

Why did you change the wiki in the middle on a tag discussion? @BobTheBuilder_v1

Not only that but I agree with Nacho and ultra specific wikis having issues. Keeping it simple and easily understood would lead to less mistags in the future.

I changed it based on the original four replies yesterday. The agreement seemed to be that the old wiki was not specific enough, so I added extra clauses here and there to make it perfectly clear what is expected of the tag. The measurement thing probably would not age well in hindsight, so I appreciate the idea of basing it on proportions.

Though I agree it would have been better to post the proposed new wiki beforehand, it achieved the same results.

About 25,113 out of the current 295,056 midriff posts have the swimsuit tag. Is there really any point excluding it in the tag definition while also having a note at the end including clothing that don't usually seem that different from bikinis in terms of amount of skin revealed (in particular sports bras)?

Alixiron said:

About 25,113 out of the current 295,056 midriff posts have the swimsuit tag. Is there really any point excluding it in the tag definition while also having a note at the end including clothing that don't usually seem that different from bikinis in terms of amount of skin revealed (in particular sports bras)?

Yes. I don't want to have to sort through hundreds of posts like post #8284071 just to find posts like post #8282078.