Implicating stockings -> garter_belt.

Reason: For thigh highs to be stockings, they need garter belts.

Stockings can also be hung on chiminies though. Keep and fix.

Those should be tagged christmas_stockings as they are an entirely different item.

123easy said:
Implicating stockings -> garter_belt.

Reason: For thigh highs to be stockings, they need garter belts.

That's not strictly true. There are stockings that have an elastic band at the top that support themselves, without a need for a garter belt. Wikipedia says: "A stocking, (also known as hose, especially in a historical context), is a close-fitting, variously elastic garment covering the foot and lower part of the leg. Stockings vary in color, design and transparency." A quick image search on Google turns up a number of stockings sans garter belt.

From stockingstore.com (Not a super-reliable source, but better than wiki for most people -.- [;us considering they specialize, it seems they'd know their stuff)
Stockings: Although the popular use of this word has come to be anything worn on the legs (i.e. pantyhose, hold-ups or tights) we will stick with the more traditional definition. Stockings, as referred to on this web site, are the traditional style that are put on individually and attached to a garter at the top for support. These can come in plain top, satin top, or lace top, but should not be confused with hold-ups, which stay up by themselves. Stockings were originally made of silk back in the 16th century. Then, in the 1920's they really gained popularity and were considered to make a women's leg look and feel sexy, shaping the women's leg and smoothing out any flaws in the skin. In the 1940's nylon stockings, or nylons, as they were called, replaced the silk stockings and promoted easier manufacturing and a lesser price.

Thigh Highs: Thigh highs are stockings that can sometimes stay up on their own without the use of garters. Some have top welts of beautiful lace and some have elastic welts at the top to hold them up. StockingStore considers any stocking with a silicone coating on the inside of the upper welt as a Hold-Up stocking and the others with just elastic to hold them as Thigh Highs. Basically you can have a stocking appearance without using a garter belt or any other means of holding up the stocking. This gives a very sexy look.

So... it classifies some stockings asnot needing garters, listing them as hold-ups- But that they fall out of the traditional definition. Hrm.

Hrm indeed.

The site itself is inconsistent, though. They say they stick to the definition of stocking as needing a garter, but then they say thigh highs are "stockings that can sometimes stay up on their own without use of garters." So....stockings need garters, but thigh-highs are stockings that don't need garters.

I'd say that means stockings don't need garters. I realize that it certainly used to, but that's not how the word is used anymore.

how about doing it the other way.. garter_belt -> stockings? :D

that way we can safely say that stockings *might* not need a garter belt, but if it has a garter belt, it's definetly stockings :D

Nope, because you can quite easily (and there are pictures there, not gonna look em up atm) wear a garter belt without stockings.

As for the thigh-highs being referred to as stockings that don't need garters- Yeah, pretty much. traditional stocking = needs garter. thigh_high = doesn't need garter.

123easy said:
traditional stocking = needs garter. thigh_high = doesn't need garter.

But as that site itself just said, that's not how the word is used anymore. Traditionally, "gay" meant "happy and joyous," and the word "ask" was actually (no joke) "aks." Language is a fluid, changing thing that evolves in mysterious ways, but it seems pretty clear that "stocking" is no longer used just for hosiery that needs a garter belt.

Speaking of the word "hosiery," that's not a tag. How feasible would it be to alias "stockings" to "hosiery," that way all of that's covered? Or is too much specificity sacrificed that way?

It looks like we need to do work on the "thigh_highs" tag as well and come to a consensus on its use. Sometimes it's used for hosiery with garters, sometimes without, and sometimes it's used for long socks and even thigh-high boots.

how about this:

stockings are sheer semi see though leg coverings. (I think pantyhose also probably should be aliased to stockings.. ?)

Socks are socks. Nothing changes here.

and we tag all of the books in thigh_highs to high_high_boots... and thigh_highs is aliased to either stockings or thigh_high_boots depending on what there are more instances of it being.

then again, I'll be the first on to admit my knowledge of hosery stops at socks. :P

thigh_highs is the general tag for thigh_high socks, as well as stockings, and other thigh_high items. Putting all thigh high non-boots and non-socks (obviously thicker material) under the more generic metatag of hosiery, including pantyhose, and having thigh_high_socks and thigh_high_boots- with them all implying thigh_highs- would be nice. So stockings and pantyhose and garter_belt would all imply or alias to hosiery (prefer imply), and hosiery would imply thigh_high. thigh_high_socks and thigh_high_boots would imply thigh_high, and they'd all be properly separate yet also still related, as they should be (IMO).

123easy said:
thigh_highs is the general tag for thigh_high socks, as well as stockings, and other thigh_high items. Putting all thigh high non-boots and non-socks (obviously thicker material) under the more generic metatag of hosiery, including pantyhose, and having thigh_high_socks and thigh_high_boots- with them all implying thigh_highs- would be nice. So stockings and pantyhose and garter_belt would all imply or alias to hosiery (prefer imply), and hosiery would imply thigh_high. thigh_high_socks and thigh_high_boots would imply thigh_high, and they'd all be properly separate yet also still related, as they should be (IMO).

I think this is pretty good (really good, actually), except I'm not sure that hosiery should imply thigh-high. I'm not really sure why just now, I just feel like it probably shouldn't. I'll get back to you if I come up with an actual reason lol.

let's see... god this was a difficult post to break down. D:

This is what's currently proposed.. mixed in with some of my thoughts.

thigh_highs implies hosiery
stockings implies hosiery
garter_belt implies hosiery --should this be so? since you can wear a garter belt without the hose, after all. Or does it could as it's a "related" object?
pantyhose implies--or is aliased? to hosiery --someone should also look through pantyhose before this is done as I'm pretty sure some of the pantyhose I saw are stockings.

thigh_highs is gone through and has thigh_high_socks or thigh_high_boots added appropriatly...
thigh_high_socks implies thigh_highs
thigh_high_boots implies thigh_highs

I don't know. Maybe we should have a thigh_high_stockings also, and thigh_highs as a tag can be dismissed.. and we'd have _stockings, _socks, and _boots, the first two implying hosiery? Right now, as written above, _boots implies thigh-highs which implies hosiery. and boots are not hose.

hosiery should not imply thigh-high though, because hosiery is also 'defined' as socks, knee-highs (kneehighs(15), knee_socks(13), kneesocks (11, currently tagged as a character, though I think less then half are actually the character in question, because I'm not familiar with !@#Fing panty_and_stocking_with_garterbelt) knee-high_boots (7), knee_highs (7), knee_high_socks (1) and knee-igh_stockings (1))) then there are tights which should be alased with pantyhose I think.. though the tag is a freakin' mess and seems to be used for everything from panty hose to thigh highs, to knee socks to... you know. I don't know for some of these.

and then there are toeless_socks (244), socks (791), striped_socks (17) and.. acutually no, I'm not typing this. http://e621.net/tag?name=*sock*&type=&order=count&commit=Search

*sighs* Fuckin' socks.

I like getting rid of thigh_high, anyway, and having is aliased to _stockings probably, so that we don't get too complicated with implications.

I'll be off over here doing some unifying.. *sigh* And I'll post back in a bit when I get knee socks down to two or three tags as opposed to 300.

I realised I'd been typoing, that all should be thigh-high not thigh_high D:

Uhm.. I also realized there's not always a clear difference between socks and stockings. c_c much of the art under stockings looks EXACTLY like the thigh high socks I've been tagging.

in some cases, yeah, they are clearly socks ( post #56421 ) and in others, clearly not ( post #136029 ) ... but most are... a lot more in the middle: post #32050

well, right now I"m jsut goign through the errant sock related tags, so ..maybe I should jsut call these socks and be done with it.

A part of me says that maybe we should actually lump thigh high socks and stockings together, but no one will want stripey socks when they're looking for post #142254 ... which is why the striped_socks tag exists I supose but.. rawr :(

it doesn't help that the sock website I'm looking at has stripey tights and thigh high knitted socks that need garter belts and.. .D:

........ I really hate socks/stockings/tights/ ._.

Hosiery boils down to socks, stockings, and underclothing. Since not all socks are thigh high, I'll agree- hosiery shouldn't imply thigh_high. Otherwise, hosiery is an appropriate implication for each of those four items.

For the most part the tights tag is being used incorrectly- A snug stretchable garment covering the body from the waist or neck down. That's what tights are. Also known as a leotard. It shouldn't be aliased, but cleaned up. Gimme the go-ahead and i'll get to work on that.

For the socks or stockings part- We need to decide something there. Stockings are usually designed to be form-fitting to the leg. Socks while meant to be held up by elastic, tend not to be strictly form-fitting. Perhaps if it's baggy or thick-looking fabirc, name it a sock. Thin or form-fitting, name it a stocking?

as for tights... no.. wikipedia isn'tt he best reference, but:

"In American English, the difference between pantyhose and tights is determined in the weight of the yarn used and the thickness to which the garment is knitted. Generally, anything up to 40 denier is known as pantyhose and anything over can be classified as tights. In the United Kingdom, the word "tights" is used in all cases when referring to pantyhose."

So, tights could probably be rolled into pantyhose, or pantyhose into tights.

a Leotard actually is a skintight garment that covers the "swimsuit area" (as in, a 1 piece) and may be long sleeved, short sleeved or no sleeved. A *unitard* also covers the legs... but they aren't 'tights' :)

For the socks or stockings part- We need to decide something there. Stockings are usually designed to be form-fitting to the leg. Socks while meant to be held up by elastic, tend not to be strictly form-fitting. Perhaps if it's baggy or thick-looking fabirc, name it a sock. Thin or form-fitting, name it a stocking?

That's a reasonable idea. Maybe also more 'bright' and 'colorful' patterns (see also striped_socks are quantified as socks? as most people looking for stockings will probably be wanting the 'sexy' black stockings, rather then green and black maybe-stockings-maybe-socks-maybe leg-warmers

as for permission.. please, feel free.. ther'es a lot of clean up all over. :( there's about a dozen different redundant tags... I've started on socks, but I think I'll have to go back and do some retagging with the new potential 'guidelines' figured out there.

Of particular note, I'm adding striped socks when I see them, and toeless socks, if that ends up coming up wherever you end up starting.

Do note there's a striped_stockings tag as well. Whether it's applicable or not is up to you.

Pantyhose are sheer pieces of fabric. even if woven with black threads, you can still see through them. Tights are definitely opaque. Either way, neither of them end at the thigh- they cover the waist and hips at minimum, and are a full body sleeve at most (there are full-body pantyhose too, I know, but full body tights- which are called leotards, which is what I was meaning to say, sorry if my wording was off- are far more common).

Most images in the tights tag are either tight-fitting (but non-tights) garments, or are stockings or thigh-high socks or, as in one absurbly tagged pic, are just two cocks shoving up a tight ass. -.- Thus why I say it's horribly mistagged.

My god, who knew this could be so ridiculous.

There's a lot of text and I'm still groggy from waking up, so I apologize if I'm saying anything someone else has said. I think I read it all, but I coulda missed something.

Garter belt shouldn't imply hosiery, though it should definitely imply lingerie. Apparently pantyhose aren't tights aren't stockings. I only say this because I was doing some shopping on a naughty site for my gf and kept telling her about stockings I liked and she'd tell me they were tights, or tights and she'd say they were pantyhose. Fuck all if I know the difference, and since it's probable the average user on here knows the difference about as well as I do (not at all) I have no real problem lumping tights and panythose together. It's especially likely to be hard to tell the difference between those in images. However, stockings are definitely different, as one thing I am pretty sure about is that tights and hose cover the crotch region, where stockings go from the foot up.

I'm not actually convinced tights are definitely opaque. Maybe they are and you know better than I, easy. Also, I really don't think socks are hosiery, as they're intended to cover the foot. Maaaybe thigh-high socks can be considered hosiery, as they serve a dual function of covering the foot while also covering the leg.

d'awww, there's a socks_(marking) tag. My dog has "socks."

Ummmm...oh yeah! Snow, a few posts back you said that a lot of things tagged "stockings" looked like thigh high socks. Well shit, I can't find an example of what I'm thinking of...Can you link a couple? If it looks like what I think it does, I may have an idea on it.

123easy said:
Do note there's a striped_stockings tag as well. Whether it's applicable or not is up to you.

WAAAAAAUUUGH!

*weeps* uhm.. I would say it's easier to lump them all into one category.. _stockings? _socks? .... _legwear? Striped_legwear?

that sounds pretty dumb T_T

Pantyhose are sheer pieces of fabric. even if woven with black threads, you can still see through them. Tights are definitely opaque.

But that depends on where in the world you are. as I said, in the UK, tights ARE pantyhose. and being able to see through them is kind of subjective AND up to the artist's ability to draw them. I think it'd be best to alias tights to pantyhose, as the only real difference is how tight the weave or thick the fabric is.

Either way, neither of them end at the thigh- they cover the waist and hips at minimum and are a full body sleeve at most (there are full-body pantyhose too,

well.. kind of? there are control top pantyhose/tights, but once you go up near the breasts, you're technically in the realm of another garment. what that garment is exactly I don't know, but panty hose is really just a sheer pair of 'pants'

[qutoe]I know, but full body tights- which are called leotards, which is what I was meaning to say, sorry if my wording was off- are far more common).[/quote]

I think I misworded too.

a leotard covers crotch, to hip, up to neck. sleeves are optional. Generally, ballarinas and gymnasts will wear tights of some sort underneath to cover the legs. a unitard ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitard ) is basically tights+leotard. ^^;; we actually have a leotard tag. :D

Most images in the tights tag are either tight-fitting (but non-tights) garments, or are stockings or thigh-high socks or, as in one absurbly tagged pic, are just two cocks shoving up a tight ass. -.- Thus why I say it's horribly mistagged.

Oh gosh... I see what you mean.. yeah, go forth and tag o.o

RedOctober said:
My god, who knew this could be so ridiculous.

Makes me wanna cry XD

There's a lot of text and I'm still groggy from waking up, so I apologize if I'm saying anything someone else has said. I think I read it all, but I coulda missed something.

Garter belt shouldn't imply hosiery, though it should definitely imply lingerie. Apparently pantyhose aren't tights aren't stockings. I only say this because I was doing some shopping on a naughty site for my gf and kept telling her about stockings I liked and she'd tell me they were tights, or tights and she'd say they were pantyhose. Fuck all if I know the difference, and since it's probable the average user on here knows the difference about as well as I do (not at all) I have no real problem lumping tights and panythose together. It's especially likely to be hard to tell the difference between those in images. However, stockings are definitely different, as one thing I am pretty sure about is that tights and hose cover the crotch region, where stockings go from the foot up.

I giggled a bit. :) Good catch on the lingerie bit. :)

I'm not actually convinced tights are definitely opaque. Maybe they are and you know better than I, easy. Also, I really don't think socks are hosiery, as they're intended to cover the foot. Maaaybe thigh-high socks can be considered hosiery, as they serve a dual function of covering the foot while also covering the leg.

here's the thing: socks: post #121389 - boring socks. knee socks! post #124256 Thigh high stripey socks: post #122126

Where does the hosiery begin and end? socks are listed AS hosiery on wikipedia. before stockings and tights even :)

d'awww, there's a socks_(marking) tag. My dog has "socks."

d'aww XD

Ummmm...oh yeah! Snow, a few posts back you said that a lot of things tagged "stockings" looked like thigh high socks. Well shit, I can't find an example of what I'm thinking of...Can you link a couple? If it looks like what I think it does, I may have an idea on it.

well...

post #142335 post #140208 (on full view those probably SHOULd be socks..) post #140451 post #137575

and on the other side:

post #136029 (I gues those are technically toeless_socks...) post #135034 post #94131 (those should almost definetly be stockings.)

There are some that are REALLY REALLY obviously one or the other... but there's a LOT of gray area D:
[/quote]

Socks are, actually, hosiery. That quote I had- Socks, stockings and underclothing- is the definition of hosiery. Pantyhose is a specific subset of hosiery.

As for tights:
1. A snug stretchable garment covering the body from the waist or neck down, designed for general wear by women and girls.
2. A similar garment designed for athletic use, worn especially by acrobats and dancers. see leotard.

leotards gives us:
1. A snugly fitting, stretchable one-piece garment with or without sleeves that covers the torso, worn especially by dancers, gymnasts, acrobats, and those engaging in exercise workouts.
2. Tights.

http://tinyurl.com/436bw7v and http://tinyurl.com/3f86wo6 is an example of the waist-down, http://tinyurl.com/3u3e7ra an example of full-body tights.
batman also wore tights. Then there's... whatever Robin wore that were called tights. >_>; Which was in the same design as a legless leotard, so I guess that holds.

Edit: Hosiery doesn't necessarily mean lingerie. Panties, bras, teddies, other various undergarments/nightwear designed specifically to be appealing/erotic. So, while stockings or garter belts might/would qualify as lingerie, various socks would not.

those are.. really horrible definitions, to be honest. I'm going off of wikipedia and what knowledge I *DO* have from being a little girl who had a dream of being a pretty ballerina one day :P

BUT in any regard--let's set that aside and get back to the sock/stocking mess

Those are dictionary definitions of the words, and they are what I remember them to be from when i was a little kid and wanted to grow up to be Robin. :P

I trust wikipedia more then a dictionary in this respect.

but ANYWAY... we're diverging away from the topic.

...you trust a random poster's work that can be altered by anyone more than a reputable dictionary? o.o Interesting.

As for the UK tights/pantyhose thing: It's more like they call pantyhose tights. Outside of the UK, tights are, well, tights as I described above. It's sorta like how the Imperial system is used only in third world countries and America- Everyone else uses Metric.

I also trust the fact that google image search supports me, all the hosiery and sockish websites agree with me, etc D:

As for the UK tights/pantyhose thing: It's more like they call pantyhose tights. Outside of the UK, tights are, well, tights as I described above. It's sorta like how the Imperial system is used only in third world countries and America- Everyone else uses Metric.

Is that not what I said?

"In the United Kingdom, the word "tights" is used in all cases when referring to pantyhose."

" as I said, in the UK, tights ARE pantyhose."

:P

123easy said:
...you trust a random poster's work that can be altered by anyone more than a reputable dictionary? o.o Interesting.

Actually. Nature (basically the top peer-reviewed scientific journal) ran an article in 2005 showing strong evidence that Wikipedia on the whole is just as factually accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica. I'll have to dig and find that article, but I'll pm it to you when I find it if you'd like. The advantage to wikipedia is that whenever new evidence is found, whenever the "facts" change, wikipedia can reflect that change almost immediately. Wikipedia is the Linux of encyclopedias. Just as no one who's on a Linux board is going to tell you to run a line in the terminal that you think will fix your audio drivers but actually slags your motherboard, so the majority of the community desires to benefit everyone and makes an attempt to keep the bullshit vetted and everything else accurate and up to date on Wikipedia. I trust it. The trick is to make sure you're looking at a page that's properly sourced, and occasionally check up on said sources where possible.

Lol. We're way off. Sorry. So...have we made any actual decisions here?

Oh I'm aware that Wiki tries to be accurate, but there's no end of sabotage within the system by the people who run it themselves, even. either way, dictionary = credible source backed by around 100 people in the linguistic field. wiki page = written by one person and accepted by at least one other, regardless of qualification. It's why Wiki pages are seen as being sources of information of ill-repute. That said, I personally use Wiki a lot because for the most part it does cite sources and does have factual information. But trusting it over a dictionary? Seems odd.

Snow: No, you're saying tights are pantyhose. I'm saying pantyhose are tights. The difference is in which is the implicatee and which the implicated.

123easy said: Snow: No, you're saying tights are pantyhose. I'm saying pantyhose are tights. The difference is in which is the implicatee and which the implicated.

sweetheart.
I'm not trying to suggest an implication, or a alias with my phrasing. up there, I was sharing information about words and clothing... without trying to bath a declaration abuot which one is 'correct' or incorrect, and that one probably depends on which side of the pond you're on.

anyway.

So we successfully agree that tights and pantyhose may in some form possibly be aliased together. I would say that pantyhose should be the surviving tag, as it can't be confused for anything else.

YAY! One down, a zillion more to go.

actually the biggest problem is that this is all kind of a mess, tag wise.. and a lot of thigns need tagged in one way or another. rawr.
and I think there was some debate over names and how to clssify things, but it's ALL THE WAY up there somewhere.