Topic: Tag Alias: striped_stockings -> striped_legwear

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

Aliasing striped_stockings → striped_legwear
Link to alias

Reason:

Same thing, or at least they're used for the same thing. What's strange is that I remember there being a whole lot of striped_stockings tags until somewhere last year, but these all got suddenly changed to/into striped_legwear through means unknown (they're not aliased at the moment).

There must be more people confused by what happened, because striped_stockings is now slowly starting to grow again, and before you know it we'll have two similar tags once more.

I'm only suggesting an alias because of the rigorous change (whatever that was) to striped_stockings before, which to me seems like someone really wants these tags to be equal. Otherwise I'd actually prefer an implication because striped_legwear seems like an umbrella tag, to which things like striped_stockings and striped_pants should be related but still searchable on their own.

Though I have to admit that, in reality, nobody uses the striped_legwear tag for anything besides stockings. And striped_pants only has one post...

Updated by user 59725

I'm also seeing kneesocks, thigh-highs and others among the stockings, but I think that's really too trivial to actually care about. +1 for the alias.

Updated by anonymous

Hmm, yeah, I do see a few untagged knee socks in there, but aren't stockings usually synonymous with thigh highs here? Like, there are obviously stockings that aren't thigh highs, but nearly every thigh high is also a stocking (also demonstrated in that "striped_legwear -stockings" search), and this is particularly true if they're striped.

Or well, a few aren't because they don't cover the feet (making them leg_warmers, that depending on length sometimes get tagged with thigh_highs too), but those are pretty rare.

Again though, if it's beneficial to even a few people I'm not opposed to making a list of striped_xxx --> striped_legwear implications instead.

Updated by anonymous

I went ahead and denied this and approved an implication instead.

Updated by anonymous

  • 1