Tag Alias/Implication? - no_shoes -> no_footwear

Posted under Tags

It feels awkward tagging no shoes on characters that are well know to wear boots, sandals, or some other form of footwear. This could be handled either with an alias or an implication.

Alias

Would be more in line with legwear and the no legwear tag, plus have fewer tags to keep track of.

alias no_shoes -> no_footwear
Implication

Would be more in line with headwear and the no headwear tag, but it would have more tags to keep track of.

imply no_shoes -> no_footwear
  • Create + populate multiple other no_* tags, such as no_boots, no_sandals, etc.

Thoughts

For myself, I'd be more in favor of an alias, but what do others think?

Unbreakable said:

The problem with no socks is that the equivalent to no footwear (no legwear) is used for something else entirely.

From how I read BrokenEagle98's post, users sometimes tag no shoes like a theoretical no footwear, with a similar definition to no legwear, even if the character is barefoot which would be against the wiki definition. Basically I'm asking if we wanted to combine the definition of no socks, a similar tag, with no legwear.

kiyah123 said:

From how I read BrokenEagle98's post, users sometimes tag no shoes like a theoretical no footwear, with a similar definition to no legwear, even if the character is barefoot which would be against the wiki definition. Basically I'm asking if we wanted to combine the definition of no socks, a similar tag, with no legwear.

I don't really have an opinion on either no socks or no legwear since I have almost never used them myself though I guess no legwear suffers from a lot of mistaggings because of the name.

As for the OP, I think an alias is better.

1