Proper usage of no_socks tag

I noticed that user #444726 has been going on a personal crusade to strip no_socks from posts tagged with sandals or geta, and occasionally boots or slippers, a couple examples being post #1089474 and post #1955616. Until recently I've felt that the consensus was to consider all such footwear as "shoes" for purposes of tagging, but now I'm beginning to reconsider this as the wiki doesn't explicitly state whether they should or shouldn't count.

The aforementioned posts wouldn't be tagged barefoot, so can anyone give a good reason why no_socks doesn't apply? Otherwise, would it be inappropriate to go on an editing spree to revert the changes that have already been made? Either way, it might be a good idea to amend the no_socks wiki to clarify exactly what sorts of footwear it should go with.

Shouldn't it only be used for footwear that people would normally wear socks with? Sandals have no socks as the default and wearing socks with them is unusual, so rather than tagging no_socks on almost all sandals posts we should have a different tag like socks_with_sandals for the ones that do have socks.

Sandals aren't typically worn with socks, at least in the west. Geta I'm unsure about, I know geta socks exist but I'm not sure how common they are. Boots are kind of a weird case since the socks can be easily obscured by the top of the boot. Slippers you can make an argument for either way.

Log said:

Geta I'm unsure about, I know geta socks exist but I'm not sure how common they are.

From google image searching geta it seems like it's almost a 50:50 split between socks and no socks.

I've always thought of the no_socks as anything where the feet area is bare with shoes worn, regardless of the type of shoe and whether it is common to wear socks with them or not. How else are you going to search for the visual? I can see why someone would want to remove them from regular sandals due to the usage of other no_* tags, but then Japanese-style sandals are often worn with tabi. You can't just do a ~no_socks ~sandals to cover the gap of untagged posts of feet visibly bare under shoes without it including a number of posts you're not looking. Hard to say what to do here. Socks are still common enough with slippers, so removing no_socks from them is a more definite no IMO.

Sorry for bumping but I feel like this wasn't fully resolved. I posted about this tag from forum #133694:

For the no socks tag. I came across post #1148076 and its post changes where the tag was 'debated'. The character in question is wearing sandals; is it really the norm to wear socks while wearing sandals? Going through no_socks it would seem that this is assumed since a majority of the images are of characters wearing sandals.

If it's a case of zouri and geta normally worn with tabi why not just tag only these with no socks (when it applies) since these don't implicate sandals and so shouldn't be considered as such? That would differentiate sandals in the west and Japanese sandals from the no socks tag and make it less of a tag that's 'implied' for regular sandals.

Otherwise 20k~ images under sandals should all be tagged with no socks.

Hypothetically, it's like tagging all posts featuring bikinis with no pants if it was traditionally common to wear Japanese bikinis with Japanese pants. We should treat Japanese sandals separately is basically my suggestion.

On the other hand if no socks should indeed be used for all footwear like this thread suggested then we need to fully commit that sandals (and all its subsets e.g. flip-flops) should all have the no socks tag. I think that this would dilute the tag but so be it if this should be the case because a simple no_socks -sandals search can be done to get rid of the obvious case.

And now it seems like @ssholeeric has decided to settle the debate once and for all, again, by mass-editing hundreds of sandals no_socks posts with a new sandals barefoot tag, which is just begging to be confused with the existing barefoot sandals. Also, it does nothing to address the use of no socks with other types of footwear like open toe shoes, or the fact that it's still a pain to search for Western-style sandals worn with socks, like post #2237768. I'm thinking about reverting these changes in the hope that there is a better solution.

I'm fine with making exceptions to no socks for footwear not ordinarily worn with socks, but we need to codify firm rules for when the tag does and does not apply. Otherwise all we get is more inconsistency and further tag fragmentation, making it that much harder to search for specific combinations.

iridescent_slime said:

or the fact that it's still a pain to search for Western-style sandals worn with socks, like post #2237768.

Going by the first few pages, most of the sandals socks search shows zouri being worn with tabi/socks. The zouri tag is severely underpopulated, not because it's rarely seen but because it's usually just tagged generically as sandals (just to give a recent example though you could argue it looks more like flip-flops) and is mixed up with Western-styled sandals and sandals -zouri socks would do nothing currently so I might get around to populating it later.

iridescent_slime said:

I'm fine with making exceptions to no socks for footwear not ordinarily worn with socks, but we need to codify firm rules for when the tag does and does not apply. Otherwise all we get is more inconsistency and further tag fragmentation, making it that much harder to search for specific combinations.

I think the current way of tagging no socks is fine, just that it shouldn't apply to all types of footwear. If it's unusual to wear socks with the footwear then no socks shouldn't be tagged for every instance of it being worn and otherwise if it's not unusual. Open toe shoes and toeless boots are designed to expose the toes therefore socks wouldn't usually be worn so the former would apply. For posts with footwear where the latter applies then updating them with no socks would be needed. However, as I said before, I wouldn't mind if we were to use no socks indiscriminately for all footwear, it just might take a while to implement more so than my suggestion.

kiyah123 said:

If it's unusual to wear socks with the footwear then no socks shouldn't be tagged for every instance of it being worn and otherwise if it's not unusual. Open toe shoes and toeless boots are designed to expose the toes therefore socks wouldn't usually be worn so the former would apply.

The thing about open-toe shoes, though, is even if they aren't normally worn with socks, wearing them with thighhighs or pantyhose is very common. We don't presently have a better tag for shoes like these worn over bare feet; no legwear is for something else entirely.

iridescent_slime said:

The thing about open-toe shoes, though, is even if they aren't normally worn with socks, wearing them with thighhighs or pantyhose is very common. We don't presently have a better tag for shoes like these worn over bare feet; no legwear is for something else entirely.

I don't know if this is a geographic thing, but socks/pantyhose with sandals isn't common at all, and often seen as a fashion faux pas, barring a few specific styles and outfits.

There were quite a few posts that included beach sandals with the tag, like this and this. Sure, they could be worn with socks or pantyhose, but most often, they're not. Sandals are made to be worn without socks.

Socks with sandals is more an exception than a commonality. It makes more sense to create a socks_with_sandals tag, with the expectation that sandals are generally worn without socks.

iridescent_slime said:

The thing about open-toe shoes, though, is even if they aren't normally worn with socks, wearing them with thighhighs or pantyhose is very common. We don't presently have a better tag for shoes like these worn over bare feet; no legwear is for something else entirely.

So the question is if no socks should consider all types of legwear not just socks, basically no legwear but with a different wiki on the usage of the tag? If this should be the case then perhaps renaming the tag to better reflect that definition should be done since socks are pretty specific? barefoot_under_footwear? no_hosiery?

Otherwise if we considered no socks for all legwear then I'd say it could be applied to open toe shoes if it's common enough to wear legwear with it.