[REJECTED] Thighhighs_under_boots implications

@chilled_sake: > @NWF_Renim said: > > I get that this tag...

2018-04-27T23:11:28-04:00

@NWF_Renim said:

I get that this tag exists because of the thigh_boots tag implicating thighhighs, but I honestly think this tag is the wrong approach to resolving the issue. It'd probably be better to simply make a tag that covers specifically thighhigh socks/stockings. That would then make the thighhighs_under_boots a simple 2 tag search, and thus wouldn't be needed to be kept. The new tag specifically for thighhigh socks/stockings would itself likely be useful in other combination searches.

This new tag would of course implicate thighhighs.

The concept is interesting, I like the idea of having a tag specifically for thigh-length socks. They're definitely an evergreen of otaku culture and I always thought the thighhigh tag was specifically for this.

But what you've proposed lacks any intuitive understanding. What I propose instead would be to create a "hosiery" tag to function as thighhighs does today, to cover pantyhose, thighhigh socks, and thigh boots, and to still create a tag for thighhigh socks.

This would achieve your goals, doesn't cause confusion, and creates an actual intuitive tag for thighhigh socks, which most have assumed were just thighhighs.

@DanbooruBot: The bulk update request #1316 (forum #136815)...

2018-04-27T14:45:21-04:00

The bulk update request #1316 (forum #136815) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

@DanbooruBot: This bulk update request has been rejected...

2018-04-27T14:45:21-04:00

This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 60 days.

@user_525419: > NWF_Renim said: > > Going to disagree with a...

2017-09-30T16:14:40-04:00

NWF_Renim said:

Going to disagree with a tag that more or less amounts to legwear under footwear. Tagging the cases where legwear isn't present makes a lot more sense than tagging examples for when it is present.

You have the no_socks/no_legwear in mind for this?

@NWF_Renim: > nonamethanks said: > > What would exactly be...

2017-09-30T16:12:20-04:00

nonamethanks said:

What would exactly be the difference between the current thighhighs tag and the hypotetical thighhigh socks? That the latter is to be worn under footwear?

The thighhighs tag is a length tag that includes both footwear (thigh boots) and legwear (stockings/thighhigh socks), and as such as a tag doesn't indicate between the two. There is a lot of gray areas between the footwear and legwear, which is why they both fall under the tag. In cases where one is clearly identifiable it would be worthwhile having subtags that specifically covered them and allow for finer searching. As it currently stands there only exists one covering thigh_boots, but not one that would isolate out those that are unambiguously stockings/socks.

Chiera said:

I'm for an umbrella tag: legwear_under_boots

Going to disagree with a tag that more or less amounts to legwear under footwear. Tagging the cases where legwear isn't present makes a lot more sense than tagging examples for when it is present.

@user_525419: > worldendDominator said: > > Why do...

2017-09-30T15:47:27-04:00

worldendDominator said:

Why do thigh_boots imply thighhighs in the first place?

topic #1388, topic #2426, topic #12715

Honestly, I still disagree with that stance, but this discussion looks pretty depleted.

@Unbreakable: > worldendDominator said: > > Why do...

2017-09-30T15:46:32-04:00

worldendDominator said:

Why do thigh_boots imply thighhighs in the first place?

topic #1388

@worldendDominator: Why do thigh_boots imply thighhighs in the...

2017-09-30T15:43:22-04:00

Why do thigh_boots imply thighhighs in the first place?

@nonamethanks: > Chiera said: > > If we let this imply it to...

2017-09-30T15:04:57-04:00

Chiera said:

If we let this imply it to those two tags, then is the tag really necessary?
Because it seems like a two tag search and therefore the tag shouldn't really exist.

I#m for an umbrella tag: legwear_under_boots

I have to agree that this would work better.

@user_525419: If we let this imply it to those two tags, then...

2017-09-30T15:03:09-04:00

If we let this imply it to those two tags, then is the tag really necessary?
Because it seems like a two tag search and therefore the tag shouldn't really exist.

I#m for an umbrella tag: legwear_under_boots

@nonamethanks: > NWF_Renim said: > > I get that this tag...

2017-09-30T14:55:30-04:00

NWF_Renim said:

I get that this tag exists because of the thigh_boots tag implicating thighhighs, but I honestly think this tag is the wrong approach to resolving the issue. It'd probably be better to simply make a tag that covers specifically thighhigh socks/stockings. That would then make the thighhighs_under_boots a simple 2 tag search, and thus wouldn't be needed to be kept. The new tag specifically for thighhigh socks/stockings would itself likely be useful in other combination searches.

This new tag would of course implicate thighhighs.

What would exactly be the difference between the current thighhighs tag and the hypotetical thighhigh socks? That the latter is to be worn under footwear?

@NWF_Renim: I get that this tag exists because of the...

2017-09-30T14:32:23-04:00

I get that this tag exists because of the thigh_boots tag implicating thighhighs, but I honestly think this tag is the wrong approach to resolving the issue. It'd probably be better to simply make a tag that covers specifically thighhigh socks/stockings. That would then make the thighhighs_under_boots a simple 2 tag search, and thus wouldn't be needed to be kept. The new tag specifically for thighhigh socks/stockings would itself likely be useful in other combination searches.

This new tag would of course implicate thighhighs.

@nonamethanks: create implication thighhighs_under_boots ->...

2017-09-30T13:47:06-04:00

create implication thighhighs_under_boots -> boots
create implication thighhighs_under_boots -> thighhighs

Link to request

EDIT: This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 60 days.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1316 (forum #136815) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.