Posted under General
Alias:
loose_sock -> loose_socks
Reason: Self-evident.
Edit:
I also just noticed the loose_thighhigh tag as well. It should probably be changed to its plural version, and then have the singular version aliased to it, so that it would be consistent.
Edit2:
You can also pretty much disregard what I said in the OP. See discussion below.
Updated by sgcdonmai
Bapabooiee said:
Edit:
I also just noticed the loose_thighhigh tag as well. It should probably be changed to its plural version, and then have the singular version aliased to it, so that it would be consistent.
Probably not since it appears to refer to one loose thighhigh.
So loose thighhigh refers to wearing thighhighs, but one is rolled down or loosened somehow?
Alright, I've edited the loose thighhigh wiki page to reflect this.
unicogirl said: A loose sock wouldn't work with the tag, since it is referring to the average sock falling down. Unless you come up with a different name.
Doing some searching, now, it would seem sock_pull would match that critereon - which, as per the wiki, also seems to cover socks that are merely just loose, and not being actively pulled on.
Using post #645232 as an example, we would also probably need a thighhigh equivalent. I would suggest maybe using thighhigh_pull, with loose_thighhigh(s?) being aliased to it, as to be consitent with the socks variant.
... that is, assuming that we don't wanna differentiate between thighhighs or socks that are being pulled on, or ones that are simply loose.
Any opinions for or against differentiating between the two?
Updated
In light of that:
Updated
sgcdonmai said:
add an implication: thighhigh pull → sock pull
That would cover the "a thighhigh is a sock" issue.
But then again, that raises the question -- as silly as it sounds -- "what if we only want to search for loose socks, and not loose thighhighs?"[1] It's probably a non-issue, given the relatively low volume of these kinds of posts, but I thought it's worth putting out there.
And I would presume we'll just leave loose_sock as-is, since it can be potentially ambiguous with loose_socks and sock_pull, since they're different things?
Edit:
[1] Or, what the fine fellow below me just said. I think I was trying to question the implication, but phrased it into an obtuse question for whatever reason.
Updated
Bapabooiee said:
But then again, that raises the question -- as silly as it sounds -- "what if we only want to search for loose socks, and not loose thighhighs?"
Simple answer: sock_pull -thighhighs
I'm in disagreement with your idea of trying to implicate thighhigh_pull to sock_pull. This idea can be seen as trying to implicate thighhighs to socks, which is incorrect. You're viewing thighhighs as a specific object, of which it is not, it is a classification of length for a variety of visually similar objects here. Some objects that would qualify for thighhighs are not socks, such as thigh_boots, thus thighhigh_pull which is a specific situation involving thighhighs should not implicate sock_pull. If you're claiming that thighhighs should be used for the specific object, then you're forcing us to make a whole specific tag for images of things like thigh_boots that are being taken off, while at the same time making a tag that can cause confusion on the definition of how we use thighhighs.
I also don't like the idea of aliasing loose_thigh/s to thighhigh_pull, as it feels that "loose" would be more of a passive depiction that the item is loose upon the leg, while "pull" gives the impression that it is an active effect in the image, that one is "pulling" on the object. Though there are alternatives ways to get specificity going with the alias, I'd imagine. I just still don't agree with it, but less so than the implication mention above.
NWF_Renim said: I also don't like the idea of aliasing loose_thigh/s to thighhigh_pull, as it feels that "loose" would be more of a passive depiction that the item is loose upon the leg, while "pull" gives the impression that it is an active effect in the image, that one is "pulling" on the object.
So you would advise making that distinction?
If that's the case, then we'd also need to do the same for the sock-related tags, and adjust the sock_pull wiki as well.
For thighhighs, we'd have:
But I'm not sure how that would work for socks.
The tag loose_socks (plural) is used to refer to a certain style of socks, so using loose_sock (singular) for socks that are falling off might be potentially confusing or ambiguous. If we decide to go through and make the distinction, though, then some tag restructing might be required to make this all work.
Some more opinions on all of this would be nice.
Let's keep socks and thighhighs separate. Their intended uses here are pretty well defined and we conflating the two would be more trouble than benefit, I feel. So I'm with NWF here.
NWF_Renim said: I also don't like the idea of aliasing loose_thigh/s to thighhigh_pull, as it feels that "loose" would be more of a passive depiction that the item is loose upon the leg, while "pull" gives the impression that it is an active effect in the image, that one is "pulling" on the object.
Well, with panty_pull we're tagging panties being "loose" even if there is no obvious pulling action going on in the image.
NWF_Renim said:
Some objects that would qualify for thighhighs are not socks, such as thigh_boots, thus thighhigh_pull which is a specific situation involving thighhighs should not implicate sock_pull.
Good point. I hadn't thought about that.
