create alias no_socks -> no_legwear
Both tags are used and I think socks are some kind "legwear". While there is no legwear present, it looks a bit off to create a category for socks in this case.
Posted under Tags
create alias no_socks -> no_legwear
Both tags are used and I think socks are some kind "legwear". While there is no legwear present, it looks a bit off to create a category for socks in this case.
Read the wikis for the tags. They are used very differently. "No socks" is for when a character is wearing shoes with no socks underneath (it's like barefoot, but with shoes being worn). While "no legwear" has nothing to do with shoes, but rather the character's canon outfit (thus it's more like tags such as "no glasses" or "no eyepatch").
Provence said:
Isn't no legwear then a special case of no socks. So wouldn't it be logical then if no legwear implies no socks?
The trouble with this is that no legwear and barefoot aren't mutually exclusive. This implication would lead to lots of posts tagged both no socks and barefoot, which doesn't work according to the description of no socks.
Provence said:
Or should these tags exclude one another?
No, as I already said, they're completely different from each other. One being used tells you nothing about whether the other should be used. I'll try to find some examples so this can be understood.
post #2429774 and post #2431277 are no_legwear but NOT no_socks: Rem normally wears thighhighs with her maid outfit, and since she's not, it's tagged "no legwear". But in the first example you can't see her feet and in the second example she's barefoot, so "no socks" (which is dependent on wearing shoes) is not applied to either.
post #2439790 is no_legwear AND no socks: You can see her feet here, and she's wearing shoes over bare skin.
post #2408871 is no_socks but NOT no_legwear: It's not a canonical outfit, so the "no legwear" tag is irrelevant.