In the process of tagging post #859641, I ran into a situation where I'm not sure our "legwear" tags all line up appropriately. In that image, I'd call Ramona's legwear either "stockings" or "tights", but not "thighhighs" (they are one piece and don't end at the thigh), or "pantyhose" (they aren't thin or shear enough to be called that in my mind).
Despite this, stockings aliases to thighhighs and tights aliases to pantyhose, leaving no appropriate term left for the article in question. Moreover pantyhose's wiki explicitly distinguishes "tights" from "pantyhose" in spite of the alias.
Something probably needs re-worked or redefined here. The article of clothing here is basically the same as the "tights" in "Robin Hood: Men in Tights".
Since that was done before I came to the site. I believe stockings was aliased to thighhighs due some stockings going past the knee and not necessarily becoming pantyhose due to (for example) thighhighs garter_belt. Since some people look at opaque legwear as pantyhose anyway, it was aliased to that, so perhaps you are looking for leggings?
Shinjidude said: In that image, I'd call Ramona's legwear either "stockings" or "tights", but not "thighhighs" (they are one piece and don't end at the thigh), or "pantyhose" (they aren't thin or shear enough to be called that in my mind).
Urgh, I'll hate you forever if you start distinguishing between "tights" and "pantyhose". Tights are pantyhose, just that the former are British, whereas the latter are American. I object to distinctions as confusing as this one.
葉月 said: Urgh, I'll hate you forever if you start distinguishing between "tights" and "pantyhose". Tights are pantyhose, just that the former are British, whereas the latter are American. I object to distinctions as confusing as this one.
Uhh...no. Tights and pantyhose are most emphatically not the same thing.
Pantyhose are sheer, tights are not, and they are not constructed from the same materials.
Trust me, as someone who has a younger sister who did a lot of ballet (and who did some ballet himself many, many years go...), the difference is quite notable.
I believe what he's trying to say is that apparently in the UK "tights" and "pantyhose" are synonymous, and that they do not distinguish between the thicker and lighter versions (at least in the way we do). It was something I had noticed mentioned on wikipedia.
葉月 said: Yes they are. In British English, as I said.
We did not break away from the Queen to use her English.
But the problem I have is that in the United States the distinction is pretty clear between the two. I'm not sure, however, which form of English we consistently use.
Legwear with no visible endings are considered pantyhose, regardless of the material. That's how I've always seen them tagged. Seemed weird to me at first but in the end I don't think there's much benefit in making things more complicated.
葉月 said: No, but distinctions which clearly conflict with British usage are bad too, because they're confusing.
The current system causes confusion within American usage. And I don't know the number, but I'd imagine that Americans are the majority here, so I would make a policy that causes confusion to the least amount of people.
The problem is that using the British definition, in this case, would cause a lot more trouble.
Yes, American English is the standard on danbooru. Not with discriminatory intentions, but for practicality. So I would agree that a wiki entry to clarify is the solution. Personally, I don't know a lot about the distinction, but if it can be ascertained visually, immediately, the it's a distinction we should make, I suppose.
So what would be de-aliased, and how easy would it be to keep the tags separate?
Shinjidude said: Something probably needs re-worked or redefined here. The article of clothing here is basically the same as the "tights" in "Robin Hood: Men in Tights".
Interestingly, the movie in question explicitly refers to those as "pantyhose" during the scene where they recruit and equip the Merry Men.
sgcdonmai said: Interestingly, the movie in question explicitly refers to those as "pantyhose" during the scene where they recruit and equip the Merry Men.
Been forever since I watched it, but I'm pretty sure that thats the joke.
I don't have any objection to Fencedude's solution, but I just want to warn that you'll probably run into some issues with RiderFan over detagging "pantyhose" on pictures. The guy is... passionate about the use of that particular tag.
If they are clearly tights, he can just live with it. I'd be willing to extend the assumption that if a character is known to wear pantyhose, depictions of them can be assumed to be pantyhose when the artist has failed at making a useful distinction.
Cyberia-Mix said: Legwear with no visible endings are considered pantyhose, regardless of the material. That's how I've always seen them tagged. Seemed weird to me at first but in the end I don't think there's much benefit in making things more complicated.
It is rare that artists even draw the seam line on pantyhose, but in real life it isn't uncommon for pantyhose to be colorful and non-sheer. So unless someone is looking for great detail I doubt they will draw colorful pantyhose sheer, as just going with solid is easier and pretty much people will assume they are either pantyhose or tights.
So is the tag going to be unaliased(?) and keep colorful legwear as tights while the light browns / light blacks / and cream whites become pantyhose? Because I am personally use to tagging such things as leggings.
Since I didn't see the movie or comic, I misunderstood what Shinjidude wanted specifically, sorry about that.
