trencker (a.k.a. stirrup leggings)

I just found the trencker tag on an old post. This seems to be from Japanese トレンカ, which itself is from Luis Trenker. Its name varies on English-translated Japanese product listings. Wikipedia's English article is Stirrup pants. "Stirrup leggings" gets more google results.

The tag's posts are currently split between leggings and pantyhose. As far as I can tell, the difference according to Danbooru is just whether the foot is covered and so this straddles the two.

The leggings wiki says just to use stirrup legwear instead. The stirrup legwear wiki implies they'd be considered pantyhose.

The tag hasn't been touched since 2014 and isn't mentioned anywhere. I was initially going to suggest aliasing it, but if the current recommendation is to tag these as neither leggings nor pantyhose, but instead just lumped in stirrup legwear (which by its admittance is usually thighhighs) then I think there needs to be a different recommendation on how to tag this clothing.

Despite the recommendation, they usually do get tagged pantyhose or leggings. stirrup_legwear pantyhose is the best search to find them, but also often false positives of stirrup thighhighs alongside (or over) pantyhose. stirrup_legwear leggings has fewer results but looks like it might have been cleaned up at one point (and also has a lot of things that shouldn't qualify for either tag).

Leggings or pantyhose? Own tag or no?

This isn't particularly productive for me to say, but this has bike shorts energy (topic #32319), except in this case the Japanese term has already been dealt with, for the most part.

Looking at the wikis for pantyhose, leggings and thighhighs, it seems to me that, technically speaking, it shouldn't fall under any of these, because pantyhose and thighhighs are supposed to fully cover the feet, and leggings are not. The fact that leggings points out that you should use stirrup legwear instead, and the other two don't, seems to suggest that if you wanted stirrup leggings, you'd do stirrup_legwear thighhighs or stirrup_legwear pantyhose et al because those at least go to the feet, unlike leggings. Oddly enough, stirrup footwear claims it is for socks, when traditionally socks fell under the legwear tags, so there's probably some degree of tag poisoning there.

If we don't want to use thighhighs or pantyhose though, and give stirrup leggings/trenckers their own tag, then this wouldn't just be a simple renaming, because you'd have to account for socks and similar, giving us stirrup socks, and that also doesn't account for how to handle its colored situation (ala bike shorts).

BUR #45491 has been rejected.

create alias trencker -> stirrup_legwear

Regardless, it's a duplicate tag, so it should alias it in the same way spats are aliased to bike shorts.

After thinking about tags like toeless legwear and heel-less legwear, my opinion is that on danbooru "trencker" should be considered pantyhose with cutouts. Thus leggings are treated as something that never clothe any part of the foot.

stirrup footwear didn't have a cohesive identity from the start. The wiki says it's for socks but it was originally applied to shoes like post #3645180 and post #8924356. I guess that counts?

The actual very first thing that was tagged was a LoL Zoe post. post #3307953 I don't know what type of footwear that is.

There's also stirrup foot wraps post #6284079

I was writing an alternate BUR proposal to advocate stirrup pantyhose and rename stirrup footwear to stirrup socks in-line with some other legwear tags, but that doesn't make any sense anymore. So I'll just go through trencker and tag everything as pantyhose and maybe revisit this later.

(Edit: topic #13918 is also relevant. eight years ago, pre-stirrup footwear, there were a bunch of other stirrup and related tags that got depopulated. toeless socks has also been revived since)

This bulk update request is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 45 days.

The bulk update request #45491 (forum #375988) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

Cleaned out the tag manually. I don't think enough people are going to search trencker to warrant an alias.