Tag implication: sock_pull

Posted under General

A fair chunk of those posts seem to be either thighhighs or kneehighs that are mistagged or not tagged at all. I don't believe we have a kneehighs pull tag either. Personally I wouldn't mind using sock pull as a catch-all tag for thighhighs kneehighs and socks, especially for posts where it's difficult to discern the length due to loose socks (not to be confused with loose socks) or stretched socks, such as post #710039 or post #779078 (explicit).

Either the tag needs cleaning before implication or we combine sock pull with thighhighs pull and drop the implication.

葉月 said:
I actually use sock_pull without bothering to distinguish between the various lengths involved.

Yeah, I think that's fine. If they're being pulled off the length is less important than when tagging the garment itself. Having sock_pull thighhighs be used to turn up someone pulling off thighhighs doesn't strike me as a problem.

Edit: Actually wait, in that case the implication is problematic. Our garment tags are separated by length so we can't put socks on all images with [legwear garment] pulls.

jjj14 said:
I thought about that but I was worried someone might misunderstand it to include pants, and thus would use legwear_pull when pants_pull would be correct.

Mmm, possibly, but I think we're pretty consistent about legwear not meaning pants. For example, the Uncommonly-colored Legwear pool seems pretty free of pollution.

I still think it'd be fine, so long as we just listed that the tag does not include pantyhose/leggings, and would direct that such images should be tagged pantyhose_pull instead.

Given that pantyhose and leggings also cover the waist, it should normally be considered that they'll be treated differently from other legwear that do not cover the waist.