Question on a NSFW tag. - Forums

Ultrawide	16:9	16:10	4:3	5:4
2560 × 1080	1280 × 720	1280 × 800	1280 × 960	1280 × 1024
3440 × 1440	1600 × 900	1600 × 1000	1600 × 1200	1600 × 1280
3840 × 1600	1920 × 1080	1920 × 1200	1920 × 1440	1920 × 1536
	2560 × 1440	2560 × 1600	2560 × 1920	2560 × 2048
	3840 × 2160	3840 × 2400	3840 × 2880	3840 × 3072

Wide	Ultrawide	Portrait	Square
All Wide	All Portrait
16 × 9	21 × 9	9 × 16	1 × 1
16 × 10	32 × 9	10 × 16	3 × 2
	48 × 9	9 × 18	4 × 3
			5 × 4

Brobafett – 9 years ago10144
Hello community! Today, I want to talk about the NSFW bottomless, and its use.

I want to hear your thoughts on this. In my opinion, this tag implies the subject - in most cases, women - are not wearing any "bottom", i.e. pants, underwear, shorts, etc... Here's where it gets peculiar, say you have a wallpaper with a completely naked woman. By definition as she's naked, she's not wearing any clothes, bottoms inlcuded.

So, when you do a search with the bottomless tag, you will find all sorts of completely naked women wallpapers as well. While not completely incorrect, I believe the bottomless tag shouldn't appear on naked wallpapers. I think the whole point of this tag is also to imply the subject is clothed from waist up.

Thoughts?

To illustrate my point, here are 2 examples:

"Correct" use of the tag:
NSFWYou need to be logged in to view this wallpaper.

"Incorrect" use of the tag:
NSFWYou need to be logged in to view this wallpaper.
defurious – 9 years ago10167
This is just another example of people over tagging stuff. I agree, it's overkill on the bottom example. As is back, topless, no bra, bay(can't really tell if that is a bay, might be a lake), and both water and pier aren't the subject of the image.

IMO, tag creation should be moderated to prevent so many of these superficial tags we have now.
Holy – 9 years ago10181
Mhm.. Raises a suggestion. Automated tag management. i.e: Topless + Bottomless => Naked. I have to admit.. I like this insert le lenny face