Aliasing thigh_highs -> stockings.

Reason: Basically the same thing.

Quote from wikipedia :
In modern usage, stocking specifically refers to the form of women's hosiery configured as two pieces, one for each leg (except for American and Australian English, where the term can also be a synonym pantyhose). The term hold-ups and thigh highs refers to stockings that stay up by the use of built-in elastic, while the word stockings is the general term or refers to the kind of stockings that need a suspender belt (garter belt, in American English), and are quite distinct from tights or pantyhose (American English).

I think "thigh-highs" might apply to socks, too.

http://www.google.com/m/search?site=images&source=mog&hl=en&gl=us&client=safari&q=thigh%20high%20socks

http://danbooru.donmai.us/wiki/show?title=thighhighs

Thighhighs are distinctive from pantyhose, which are made of a sheer fabric that covers everything from waist to toe, and stockings which require the use of a garter belt in order to stay up.

They ARE awfully similar though... perhaps a meta tag that they can both imply like "leg_covering"?

http://danbooru.donmai.us/forum/show/23110
http://danbooru.donmai.us/wiki/show?title=stockings

I vote for stockings implicating thigh_highs.

Sounds fine by me. They are thigh high, even if they aren't the same as the named "thigh highs". Just not aliasing.

Edit, Part Deux: Azalyn later posted in that thread,

"Danbooru could keep the thighhighs<->stockings alias, BUT if the garter_belt tag is applied the stockings tag gets automatically aliased as well."

That would be an effective method, while keeping the work to a minimum, which I think you'd prefer, non? So then stockings can imply thigh_high and garter_belt, while thigh_highs would then imply thigh_high. new meta tag for anything thigh high (since they both imply it there shouldn't be any retagging needed, right? Everything with stockings and thigh_highs is now also is tagged thigh_high, is how I've always understood it to work), thigh highs (the sock-things) remains a separate tag, and stockings implies garter_belt and garter_belt implies stockings because well, if it's a stocking, it has a garter belt; If it doesn't have a belt, then they're thigh highs.

Could you people stop taking Danbooru as reference and think by yourself ?

Wikipedia basically tells us that thigh highs are a kind of stockings, and the only specificity is the construction, which is almost impossible to tell on a picture.

Riversyde said:
I vote for stockings implicating thigh_highs.

If thigh_highs was to be kept, then it would be the contrary ; thigh highs ARE stockings, but stockings aren't necesarily thigh highs.

Kald said:
Could you people stop taking Danbooru as reference and think by yourself ?

>Stop using Danbooru as reference
>Used a quote from Wikipedia for reason to alias
lolwut

Wikipedia basically tells us that thigh highs are a kind of stockings, and the only specificity is the construction, which is almost impossible to tell on a picture.

Could you stop taking Wikipedia as reference and think by yourself?

If thigh_highs was to be kept, then it would be the contrary ; thigh highs ARE stockings, but stockings aren't necesarily thigh highs.

Stockings are not the only leg ornament that go up to your thigh. http://danbooru.donmai.us/wiki/show?title=thighhighs See the "see also" section.
And yes, stockings do not always go up to your thigh.

Riversyde said:
>Stop using Danbooru as reference
>Used a quote from Wikipedia for reason to alias
lolwut

Could you stop taking Wikipedia as reference and think by yourself?

Comparing an encyclopedia built and updated by millions people with a site built and updated by...weeaboos ?

99% of the content on wikipedia is reliable, especially in matters so general.
In the other hand, i spent 2 hours a few days ago trying to sort the mess here between 2 japanese artists, basically because they were tagged WRONG in danbooru, and the mistakes had been copy-pasted here.

Riversyde said:
http://danbooru.donmai.us/wiki/show?title=thighhighs See the "see also" section.

This section starts by a mention "for tagging purposes", basically meaning they made up their own logic in order to settle an ambiguous subject.

Just like we tag "feline" instead of "felidae", this is wrong, and we are in no way forced to follow their logic, considering we haven't settled things by ourself.

Go ahead and quote another encyclopedia, or a lingerie site, if you think wikipedia is wrong, but stuff written in a different art archive is certainly not valid reference.

Kald said:
Comparing an encyclopedia built and updated by millions people with a site built and updated by...weeaboos ?

So you're saying weeaboos are not as reliable as other people? 'Kay then...

99% of the content on wikipedia is reliable, especially in matters so general.
In the other hand, i spent 2 hours a few days ago trying to sort the mess here between 2 japanese artists, basically because they were tagged WRONG in danbooru, and the mistakes had been copy-pasted here.

And things like this never happen on Wikipedia, is that what you're saying?

This section starts by a mention "for tagging purposes", basically meaning they made up their own logic in order to settle an ambiguous subject.

So thighboots just exist "for tagging purposes" as well, yes?

Go ahead and quote another encyclopedia, or a lingerie site, if you think wikipedia is wrong, but stuff written in a different art archive is certainly not valid reference.

You stop quoting Wikipedia, I stop quoting Danbooru.

Riversyde said:
So thighboots just exist "for their own purposes" as well, yes?

Thigh high boots are boots, thigh high socks are socks, thigh highs are, by default, either thigh high socks or stockings.
And i personnally don't see much differences between these two.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/thigh+highs

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stocking

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/stocking

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/thigh-highs

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/stocking?q=stocking

http://dictionary.infoplease.com/thigh-high

http://www.apparelsearch.com/definitions/clothing/stocking_definition.htm

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=stockings

All definitions for thigh highs lead to think it's a slang for various clothes that cover the whole legs up to the thighs.
"Thigh highs" is ambiguous, while "stockings" is not.

Kald said:
Thigh high boots are boots, thigh high socks are socks, thigh highs are, by default, either thigh high socks or stockings.
And i personnally don't see much differences between these two.

But thigh high boots are thigh high as well.

All definitions for thigh highs lead to think it's a slang for various clothes that cover the whole legs up to the thighs.
"Thigh highs" is ambiguous, while "stockings" is not.

Like I said before, stockings should imply thigh_highs. Stockings aren't the only thigh high legwear out there.

Riversyde said:
Like I said before, stockings should imply thigh_highs. Stockings aren't the only thigh high legwear out there.

As per both wikipedia and urban dictionnary, stockings that are held by suspenders are not thigh highs : post #10512

I'll also add that, considering the tag counts, "stockings" is more widely used than "thigh highs".

Kald said:
As per both wikipedia and urban dictionnary, stockings that are held by suspenders are not thigh highs : post #10512

Those stockings sure do look thigh high to me...

I'll also add that, considering the tag counts, "stockings" is more widely used than "thigh highs".

...so? Is that suppose to make a difference to whether stockings are thigh high or not?

stockings is easier to tell what they are. i never even heard of thigh highs until now.

Jesus, Kald, who stuck a stick up your ass and set it on fire? Stockings go thigh high, by base fact- they have to, since the garter belt needs to connect to them. As do the thigh high socks that have been popularized by the simple name 'thigh highs", thus leading to the 'ambiguity" of the topic. Thus why the post referecing the person who smartly indicated that thigh high socks should be separate, stockings should be separate, but both should imply that they're thigh high, and that stockings imply garter belts because, surprise! they require one. if it doesn't have a garter belt, it ain't a stocking. there's all the specificity that you need to determine whether it's a thigh high stocking, boot, or sock and tag appropriatel.