Discussing tricky tag problems

In category: Tag/Wiki Projects and Questions

As long as all these topics about tagging are on top of the forum, I thought it'd be a good time to bring up some problems I've noticed but don't know how to solve for discussion. Add more if you've got any.

1. high_heelsshoes
This is an implication we've got currently, but boots and sandals can also be high-heeled. The high_heeled_boots tag is rarely used, and high_heeled_sandals doesn't exist. Mostly we've got people tagging high_heels on everything, and getting the shoes tag all over the place. Just undoing the implication would create a giant project to go through and remove all those shoes tags manually though.

2. leggings
Just this tag by itself. The wiki defines leggings as a kind of stretch pants, (Makes sense to me, that's how I understand the term.) but the overwhelming majority of leggings tags on the site are on images that should probably be tagged stockings instead. Again, fixing this is probably a giant project no matter how it gets done. Also a question, what distinction could be made between leggings and yoga_pants? Or other kinds of stretch pants for that matter?

3. cheshire_catalice_in_wonderland
This implication would make sense to me, except that cheshire_cat is a species tag. I feel like if a character is A cheshire cat, but not THE cheshire cat, it shouldn't get the alice_in_wonderland tag. post #1651634 for example. I didn't add the cheshire_cat tag here because I didn't want the alice_in_wonderland tag to land, but she does look like a cheshire cat to me. It's a fairly small tag, so not too hard to clean up if the implication gets undone, but any other thoughts? It could also be hard to tell sometimes if a character is just a random cheshire, or the artist's unique take on the Alice character.


For number 2 I wonder if peeps are tagging leggings rather than legwear (which probably shouldn't really be added manually in the first place because it's a group tag)
EDIT: wow, that tag is almost exclusively mistags, it dosn't help that leggings implies legwear eventhough the wiki discribes them as "pants" so even if they were tagged on the right things they'd be implying wrong tags... I think. Might look into it more in the morning.

For number 3 fictional species imply their source series (at least semi-modern fictional species, unicorn doesn't imply whatever the ancient origins of those things are), koopa_troopa implies mario_bros, chao implies sonic_(series), and umm... I'd probably be able to think of non-video game examples if it wasn't 5 a.m.... whatever, why should cheshire_cat be the exception?
EDIT: Oh, namekian that's one! It, uh.. dosn't imply dragon_ball but it probably would if it had more posts.


Shoe is the umbrella term for any kind of footwear out there, including sandals and boots.

This matches the usage of the terms on Wikipedia, for example.

Socks would also qualify as footwear, but they're obviously not shoes because they miss the "protective" sole.


NotMeNotYou said:
Shoe is the umbrella term for any kind of footwear out there, including sandals and boots.

This matches the usage of the terms on Wikipedia, for example.

Socks would also qualify as footwear, but they're obviously not shoes because they miss the "protective" sole.

Why don't boots and sandals imply shoes, then?


darryus said:
Why don't boots and sandals imply shoes, then?

Because I cited wikipedia and nobody made that implication request on e621 yet.