Multiple Clothing Aliases/Implications

Tag Alias: backless_dress -> open-back_dress
Tag Alias: evening_dress -> evening_gown

Tag Implication: single_thighhigh -> asymmetrical_clothing
Tag Implication: single_elbow_glove -> asymmetrical_clothing

Isn't sure abouth these two, any comments are welcome.
Tag Alias: thigh_band -> thigh_strap
Tag Alias: thigh_ribbon -> thigh_strap

And question: if character is wearing single thighhigh (or single elbow glove) should the image be tagged with both single thighhigh and thighhighs or only the first one.

MyrMindservant said:
Tag Implication: single_thighhigh -> asymmetrical_clothing
Tag Implication: single_elbow_glove -> asymmetrical_clothing

-1 (forum #45945)

Hillside_Moose said:
-1 (forum #45945)

I'm not sure I follow, are you saying that someone only wearing one of them might still have symmetry? How many pictures of girls with an extra dorsally-aligned arm have been uploaded?

DschingisKhan said:
I'm not sure I follow, are you saying that someone only wearing one of them might still have symmetry?

If you read the linked thread, then yes.

NWF_Renim said:
I still believe that the outfit as a whole is what needs to be asymmetrical, individual parts do not necessarily make the whole asymmetrical. post #676278 has mismatched thighhighs, but it's not very asymmetrical as a whole.

NWF_Renim said:
It should be the outfit as a whole, not these individual pieces of clothing.

Anyways almost any implication to asymmetrical clothing is bound to failure, because we're going to have images where that specific item will be present but it's appearance will be made insignificant due to a variety of reasons. post #425145 has pants with a single pantsleg and the angle makes it's impact utterly insignificant.

jjj14 said:
If you read the linked thread, then yes.

Oh, I skimmed it, don't worry. That doesn't make it less wrong or more applicable to this situation. We're talking about something where only one of an item that comes in pairs is being worn. In what way is only wearing half of an article of clothing not sufficiently asymmetrical?

You missed the point. What the last thread was saying is that asymmetrical_clothing is for exceptionally asymmetrical outfits. Wearing just one glove or one sock is not exceptional.

Hillside_Moose said:
You missed the point. What the last thread was saying is that asymmetrical_clothing is for exceptionally asymmetrical outfits. Wearing just one glove or one sock is not exceptional.

That's exactly why I had not proposed to make an implication from tags like single glove, single sock or single shoe. But single_thighhigh and single_elbow_glove are noticeable enough in my opinion.

Hillside_Moose said:
You missed the point. What the last thread was saying is that asymmetrical_clothing is for exceptionally asymmetrical outfits. Wearing just one glove or one sock is not exceptional.

No, I didn't miss the point. An asymmetry that involves greater than a quarter of the length of the body is plenty exceptional.

The visual difference between a tight pant leg and a stocking is a few centimetres at the top and bottom. Is a pair of pants with only one leg now symmetrical just because half of the shirt isn't also missing? Or do pants get a free pass just because they're an article of clothing that doesn't come in two separate parts? That makes no sense now and it didn't make sense seven months ago. I mean, what would you do if they were chaps and one was missing? It would be asymmetrical_clothing because asymmetry is asymmetry.

One of my concerns with any gloves or thighhighs tag, is how it isn't uncommon for it to be single simply because the character is undressing and not because it was deliberately worn singly.

Tag implications :
blood_stain -> blood
When there is a bloodstain, there is blood.
lipstick -> lips
For lipstick without lips there is the lipstick_mark tag.

TyroneLove said:
lipstick -> lips
For lipstick without lips there is the lipstick_mark tag.

Just because there's lipstick doesn't mean the lips are prominent. post #835609, post #867081, and post #844940 have lipstick on, but the lips themselves are nearly nonexistent. It looks more liked a colored mouth outline than lips.

Also, to any moderator that reads this, please change the thread title to better reflect the OP's implications. The current title is way too general.

@ TyroneLove
I think it would've been better if you had created new thread inspead of posting in this.

Hillside Moose said:
Also, to any moderator that reads this, please change the thread title to better reflect the OP's implications. The current title is way too general.

I can edit the thread title, but it doesn't seem like a good idea to try to stuff 6 alias/implication requests into it.

And can someone comment on these
Tag Alias: thigh_band -> thigh_strap
Tag Alias: thigh_ribbon -> thigh_strap
and maybe answer my question from the first post.

It's best to create separate threads for separate alias/implications. There's no reason to post a bunch of random unrelated alias/implications in one thread and it is, in fact, discouraged.

MyrMindservant said:
I can edit the thread title, but it doesn't seem like a good idea to try to stuff 6 alias/implication requests into it.

Call it "Multiple Clothing Aliases/Implications." At least that makes the thread more specific than it is now.

And can someone comment on these
Tag Alias: thigh_band -> thigh_strap
Tag Alias: thigh_ribbon -> thigh_strap

thigh_band can probably be aliased to thigh_strap. As for thigh_ribbon, it should be left alone, no aliases or implications (except ribbon), since the two tags cover differing materials of leg accessory.

and maybe answer my question from the first post.

Tag it with only single_thighhigh. thighhighs is for plural.

Lipstick is also the stick used to apply the makeup.

We have lipstick tube for the makeup.

Done:
Alias: backless_dress -> open-back_dress
Alias: evening_dress -> evening_gown
Alias: thigh_band -> thigh_strap

Implication: thigh_ribbon -> ribbon