Why are stockings aliased!?

The hell? Suddenly it turns out that stockings are aliased to thighhighs. With absolutely no discussion, or even a single mention anywhere. They were already implying thighhighs, and one day *poof*, an alias. How and why did that happen?

葉月 said:
The hell? Suddenly it turns out that stockings are aliased to thighhighs. With absolutely no discussion, or even a single mention anywhere. They were already implying thighhighs, and one day *poof*, an alias. How and why did that happen?

stockings wiki said:
General: stockings

Upon casual observation stockings may appear to be identical to thighhighs. For Danbooru purposes stockings are aliased to thighhighs due to their near identical nature.

Which I somewhat don't agree with.

Granola said:
Which I somewhat don't agree with.

Of course not, because it's a stupid alias. But I want to know why it's there in the first place, and why it was put in silently.

If I'm properly interpreting the Wiki compare function, it seems the change was made by Ruri-451. I have no idea how to check who put in the alias, though.

Yeah, Ruri-451's edits are how that came to light. But it's not how the alias came to be, and that's what I really want to know.

Well, if they were already implying thighhighs, I can see why they were aliased. Ideally, though, both thighhighs and kneehighs should have implied stockings.

What? Are you really not aware of the distinction between an alias and an implication?

Stockings are a superset of thighhighs. If you make stockings imply thighhighs, then you are restricting it to only those stockings which are thighhighs; but since all thighhighs are stockings, then they become the same set.

LaC said:
Ideally, though, both thighhighs and kneehighs should have implied stockings.

Then what would happen with all the knee-high socks? In general I think knee-high length is more associated with what people would call a sock than a stocking.

Do we have any idea when it happened? Unless it's been in for some time, since back when Memento was an admin, it could only have been me or albert. And I haven't aliased it to or from anything that I can remember so I suppose albert decided it should have been done. I don't think I've ever used the stockings tag so I'm unfamiliar with its use and history.

It's been aliased for more than a year, I'm sure. Though in forum #1748 it was still only an implication.

piespy said: It's been aliased for more than a year, I'm sure.

Well, if so, I guess it couldn't have been a high use tag if it's only become an issue now.

I also see the "stockings = thighhighs on danbooru" explanation in the Wiki as far back as the first stockings wiki version: 12/06/2006 11:51 by albert

If there's a consensus that distinguishing is correct and an outline of how it should be done, then I'm sure albert wouldn't object if the alias is removed.

LaC said:
Stockings are a superset of thighhighs. If you make stockings imply thighhighs, then you are restricting it to only those stockings which are thighhighs; but since all thighhighs are stockings, then they become the same set.

Except that before the information was possible to retrieve. Pictures were unnecessarily tagged with thighhighs, but the info was there. Now it isn't. No way which of (stockings ∈ thighhighs) or (thighhighs ∈ stockings) you believe, data loss is there. So no, I can't see why they were aliased, and that's what I'm bitching about.

jxh2154 said:
Well, if so, I guess it couldn't have been a high use tag if it's only become an issue now.

I use it semi-regularly, along with correcting garters → garter_belt. Somehow I've never noticed the alias, but it's got to be semi-recent (ie. a couple of months).

I also see the "stockings = thighhighs on danbooru" explanation in the Wiki as far back as the first stockings wiki version: 12/06/2006 11:51 by albert

That's only mentioning that they are a specific kind of thighhighs. It's related to the history of the tag, back in the oldbooru (that would be 3 or so years ago now), albert did indeed want to alias them, but I talked him out of that and it became an implication instead.

As for the future course, I'd support removing the relationship between thighhighs and stockings entirely. I know wikipedia defines thigh-highs as a specific kind of stocking, and that's what they are in the dictionary English, but on danbooru, it's a pretty specific kind of garment that's clearly distinct from what we call thighhighs. Thighhighs have more than enough posts already, I don't think we need to lump more results in there.

葉月 said:
Thighhighs have more than enough posts already, I don't think we need to lump more results in there.

I'm confused by what you want there. On Danbooru, "thighhighs" means pretty much anything that covers the legs up to the thighs. It's a catch-all kind of tag. thigh_boots implicates it, for example. Why is having too many posts a problem for it?

葉月: how would you define stockings, anyway?

Thigh-high leg garments usually made of sheer fabric, not self-suspending but held in place with either garters or straps.

葉月 said:
Thigh-high leg garments

Thus, thighhighs.

Stockings should be taggable as their own specific term, but they should also implicate Thighhighs anyway.

Would having such a defined tag even really be necessary? More or less that sounds like simply doing a thighhighs garter_belt or thighhighs garters search.

Because they are a well-defined concept.

If we really wanted to be thorough about this, we'd use thighhighs solely for the VISUAL CONCEPT regardless of what the actual garment is, and then also tag whatever they are actually wearing

stockings
thighhigh_boots
thighhigh_socks