Posted under General
I don't know what geta are but sandals and slippers are visually distinct from shoes and should not be implicated. Nobody even tags sandals or slippers with shoes.
fake edit: I guess geta are basically sandals so I guess it could implicate that but not shoes.
Log said:
...sandals and slippers are visually distinct from shoes and should not be implicated.
They're all things you wear on your feet. Slippers may be iffy but I don't see why sandals shouldn't be implicated.
fake edit: I guess geta are basically sandals so I guess it could implicate that but not shoes.
I was going to suggest that but post #564860 is a counter-example.
After doings some checking I guess some people do consider all footwear shoes but it would be better to keep them as 3 separate distinct tags imo.
I also would like to keep them separate personally, for tagging purposes. Unless a lot of people feel strongly about making shoes the umbrella tag for all footwear. But for something like that Aya image, just add both tags. In most cases there's a distinct visual difference.
I know high_heels currently imply shoes. Always kinda bugged me, since heels and regular shoes are pretty distinct. That one should also be either removed or just changed to the new footwear umbrella tag if it gets created.
Shouldn't this become a tag group for various kinds footwear, then?
I remember there being a debate about boots not so long ago, too.
Footwear sounds good, and would let us undo some of those implications from boots and high_heels. I remember doing the initial implication but not feeling totally great about the idea.
I suppose the question then is whether we all implicate a footwear tag or, as sgc notes, just have a tag group. I'd prefer the tag group to having footwear on a bajillion posts, honestly.
This sort of thing is the reason ontologies or some other sort of tag heirarchy would be nice.
I guess I can't find a good replacement query for footwear: -barefoot yields mostly posts sans feet, and feet -barefoot yields mostly socked feet. Even ending up at feet -barefoot -socks -thighhighs -pantyhose doesn't quite yield what one would want, and probably excludes plenty that should fit.
Is this a concept we would really use though? If we don't want to do an umbrella tag for tools (forum #30092), I'm not sure that we should for footwear.
Then again we do have pretty extensive implication hierarchies for instruments (forum #18421) and jewelry (forum #18437).
Updated
I am bit more in favor of the tag group than the footwear tag. Though it should be noted that there is a shoes/footwear section under tag group:attire.
How subdivided do we want to make tag groups? I know when I made the tag group:hair color, I was under the belief that they were to be fairly subdivided. After the tag group:hair styles consolidated so much under one group though, I wasn't sure which method would be preferred or better.
I'm not arguing against the way you want to organize your tags here, because I know how pointless that is, but I have to say how flabbergasted I am to discover that some people don't consider "shoes" to be an overarching (ha) category that comprises open and closed shoes, sandals and high heels, boots, oxfords, clogs, platforms, saddle shoes, moccasins, ballet slippers, running shoes, tennis shoes, court shoes, ballet flats, kitten heels, mary janes, uwabaki, geta, foot thongs, ghillies, track spikes, espadrilles, brogues, flip-flops ... well, you get the idea at this point. The idea that a "shoe" is a particular kind of shoe. That boggles my mind.
I don't think anyone is arguing that "shoe" isn't a generic concept with specific subtypes.
It think it's more that the term shoe, (and our usage of such) most commonly refers to prototypical shoes, which are more likely to be tennis shoes or flats than something more peripheral like hiking boots, high heels, or flip-flops.
If everything is mixed into one tag, one loses the ability to separate common "shoes" from the less typical ones (ones that one is more likely to use a more specific tag for anyway). As with other places, it's a conflict between specificity and generality. We need to decide at which point on the spectrum we want to set the definition for our purposes.
I think it's not a bad idea for our definition of the tag to solely (cringeworthy pun) refer to "common" street wear shoes, and leave the atypical varieties to their more specific tags. If we have a good use for the more general "let's grab everything at once" concept, maybe we should start using footwear and set the implications up.
Blanketing into footware is fine with me, and I always point out how a tag is in use and not ...whatever ds' rant was about.
It doesn't matter what something is by dictionary/encyclopedia/whatever definition but how it's used here.
