remove implication single_thighhigh -> thighhighs

Link to request

I just did a quick research and I compared what single_glove does to the single_thighhigh tag.
It does not imply gloves. So there are two tags that expresses more or less the same thing but are treated differently. So the singular shouldn't imply the plural.

remove implication single_kneesock -> kneesocks
remove implication single_sock -> socks

Link to request

Should also be considered at the same time.

Edit: Sorry, fixed it.

I'm not sure I'm following the logic for these deimplication requests.

Thighhighs, kneesocks, and socks indicates the presence of the stated object. Single_thighhigh, single_kneesock, and single_sock indicates a user only wearing one of the stated object, but they're also stating the stated object has to be present. This would mean that single_thighhigh, single_kneesock, and single_sock are subsets of thighhighs, kneesocks, and socks respectively because they are taking the more general tag (object is present) and applying specific criteria to it (only one of the object is being worn).

nom123 said:

remove implication single_kneesock -> kneesocks

There is no such implication. What's more, we don't even use these tags. Single_kneesock is simply not in use and kneesocks is aliased to kneehighs.

As for the requests themselves, there are partially related topic #7066 and topic #9269. Particularly, see my post in forum #69351.
Admittedly, footwear is usually less noticeable than gloves, and I don't have enough time to check posts for examples at the moment. But if we assume that similar approach is applicable here as well, then removing these implications would make sense.

Maybe instead of removing three implications, how about adding an implication for gloves...?

single_glove -> gloves

See topic #7419 (socks), topic #7106 (thighhighs), topic #8279 (kneehighs).

MyrMindservant said:

As for the requests themselves, there are partially related topic #7066 and topic #9269. Particularly, see my post in forum #69351.
Admittedly, footwear is usually less noticeable than gloves, and I don't have enough time to check posts for examples at the moment. But if we assume that similar approach is applicable here as well, then removing these implications would make sense.

I've glanced over those topics, but the situations and relationships here and there are quite different. The issue in the past topics was the implication and definitions of single_glove and single_elbow_glove. Single_elbow_glove was to cover the concept of having one single elbow glove, but not necessarily indicating the person was only wearing a single glove. What is being argued here though is detaching single_<object> tags from the <object> tags when the objects are require to be present to even receive single_<object> tags. These deimplications aren't justified by the past arguments and examples.

Well, jxh stated it is a grey area so both reasoning can be done.
But instead of stating our opinions just based on words, why not discuss about artworks, where one character wears one thighhigh but nothing else and another pic with a kneehigh and a thighhigh (asymmetrical legwear).
post #2312540 for example. I don't really get why this pic should get the thighhighs tag because there is only one visible in place. The other one is a kneehigh.
If it would bring noise to the legwear tags, ok. But then it's not the fault because of the deimplication but because of the implication that was made some years ago.

Provence said:

But instead of stating our opinions just based on words, why not discuss about artworks, where one character wears one thighhigh but nothing else and another pic with a kneehigh and a thighhigh (asymmetrical legwear).
post #2312540 for example. I don't really get why this pic should get the thighhighs tag because there is only one visible in place. The other one is a kneehigh.
If it would bring noise to the legwear tags, ok. But then it's not the fault because of the deimplication but because of the implication that was made some years ago.

Except the problem is understanding of the definition of those words, so how can we properly say what is and isn't appropriate when our understanding of those words are not on the same page? It's quite clear that we're not on the same page on how these tags are being defined, which is why you view the de-implication as logical and I view it as illogical.

Tags like gloves are only covering the presence of the object. They are not bound by the quantity or state of the object, and are applicable as long one or more of the object is present in the image.

The plural naming is only because the objects come in natural pairs, and so we're more likely to see two (or more) of the object. Despite the naming being plural, the tag itself does cover single instances of the object.

The de-implication only makes sense if gloves, shoes, boots, socks, etc were defined to refer specifically to two (or more) of the object, but that isn't the way these tags are operating right now.

If those tags were redefined as plurals, then that kind of brings into question the necessity of having singular_<object> tags, because the singular word could (or more likely will have to) be un-aliased from the plural and could be used in a manner like fang and fangs. There isn't a need for a single_sock tag when you could simply just call it sock and have the tag defined as one instance of a sock present in the image.

The bulk update request #639 has been rejected.

The bulk update request #640 has been rejected.