Tag Implication: single_elbow_glove -> single_glove

Reason: One is the type of the other.

On that note, do we really need a single_elbow_glove tag at all? The same thing can be described with an elbow_gloves single_glove tag search instead.

Some characters wear asymmetrical gloves. One long, one short.

Hm, the parasol is right. It completely escaped my mind at the time of making this thread.
Then the implication is probably not needed since character can wear both gloves with only one of them being an elbow glove.

I wouldn't use either tag if the character wears two different gloves. To me, single glove/sock/whatever implies that the other hand/foot/leg is not covered by a glove/sock/thighhigh/kneehigh.

Done

S1eth said:
I wouldn't use either tag if the character wears two different gloves. To me, single glove/sock/whatever implies that the other hand/foot/leg is not covered by a glove/sock/thighhigh/kneehigh.

It actually can work pretty well.
Images like post #1011935 will be tagged only with single_glove.
post #1036610 - single_glove and single_elbow_glove.
And images like post #1022485 can be tagged with single_elbow_glove and gloves, because she is wearing both gloves but only one of them is elbow glove. I don't see a reason not to tag single_elbow_glove in such cases, after all character *is* wearing it.

So can we remove this implication. I was wrong when I requested it.

Dunno, I still don't think I'd tag single_elbow_glove in that case. Isn't it just asymmetrical_clothing?

Did we ever discuss single_* -> * implications?
At least single_wing implicates wings.

single_thighhigh thighhighs 65 pages
single_thighhigh -thighhighs 6 images

Other single_tags are around 50/50.