The tag implication #60300 cow_print_thighhighs -> cow_print is pending approval.

Reason: is in the name

Thigh_highs has a space

The bulk update request #7256 is pending approval.

create alias cow_print_thighhighs (300) -> cow_print_thigh_highs (65) # duplicate of has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through BUR
create implication cow_print_thigh_highs (65) -> cow_print (6069)

Reason: Aliasing away the above typo considering there's five pages worth of mistags so it will be made again, repeating the above request with the correctly parsed term, and unless cows now come in striped varieties, implying to spotted_thigh_highs.

The above needs to be rejected first, though.

Edit: Removed the implication to spotted_thigh_highs due to the below and so this doesn't get hung up on debate. If you disagree and want to change your vote, feel free to do so or make a new BUR for separate consideration.

cloudpie said:
Thigh_highs has a space

First time I see it being used like that, in other sites such as danbooru, gelbooru, rule34.xxx, etc is used as thighhighs

clawstripe said:
create implication cow_print_thigh_highs (3) -> spotted_thigh_highs (3)

Should cow print really count as spotted? That seems a little odd to me.

orphan_crippler said:
First time I see it being used like that, in other sites such as danbooru, gelbooru, rule34.xxx, etc is used as thighhighs

That's probably another one of those questionable Danbooru decisions, the usual spelling is thigh highs or thigh-highs. Gelbooru just rips most its posts from Danbooru so they'll use the same, then funnily enough rule34.xxx actually uses both spellings because they rip posts from both e621 and Danbooru and nobody's ever thought to alias them together.

Even if we were the ones who had it wrong, it's probably established enough that it would be too much of a hassle to revert it all

Wikipedia has it as 'thigh-high' with a hyphen, but nothing with thighhigh. The Oxford dictionary I use is silent on it. It seems nobody's been doing it right. :\

faucet said:
Should cow print really count as spotted? That seems a little odd to me.

Are there any cow prints that aren't spotted?

clawstripe said:
Wikipedia has it as 'thigh-high' with a hyphen, but nothing with thighhigh. The Oxford dictionary I use is silent on it. It seems nobody's been doing it right. :\

In the case of thigh-high stockings or thigh-high boots it would be hyphenated as it's a compound modifier. I assume it should probably remain that way when you're using it as a noun, since it's seemingly just a contraction of thigh-high(s) (stockings). I'm not sure if it's worth the effort changing it to the correct spelling when nobody has noticed or cared in all this time so far.

clawstripe said:
Are there any cow prints that aren't spotted?

I'm not sure I'd call any cow prints spotted, personally. Something more like mottled.

"Spotted" to me would usually be smaller in size and many, like a polka-dot pattern or leopard print, not giant blotches that cover huge portions of the body

faucet said:
In the case of thigh-high stockings or thigh-high boots it would be hyphenated as it's a compound modifier. I assume it should probably remain that way when you're using it as a noun, since it's seemingly just a contraction of thigh-high(s) (stockings). I'm not sure if it's worth the effort changing it to the correct spelling when nobody has noticed or cared in all this time so far.

That's pretty much my thoughts. If someone wants to go through all the trouble of making up all the undoubtedly many BURs needed to unimply, unalias, reimply, and realias every single doggone thigh_high tag just to hyphenate them all, then more power to them. But that's not going to be me.

I'm not sure I'd call any cow prints spotted, personally. Something more like mottled.

"Spotted" to me would usually be smaller in size and many, like a polka-dot pattern or leopard print, not giant blotches that cover huge portions of the body

Hm, six of one and half a dozen of the other. It was an extra thing I'd noticed and threw in, so if someone wants to argue the point, they can make an implication request for it. I'm just going to remove it from my BUR.