We have footwear and legwear tags.
Socks currently implicates legwear, but it should implicates footwear instead.

kamril said:
We have footwear and legwear tags.
Socks currently implicates legwear, but it should implicates footwear instead.

bottomwear = pants, shorts, skirts, etc.
legwear = socks, tights, legwarmers, etc.
footwear = shoes, boots, sandals, etc.

There are a few exceptions where they socks don't reach the legs (ankle socks, no-show socks), but otherwise I think the current implication works fine as is.

Looking at the wikis though, they don't reflect the implications as they are. The legwear wiki has socks listed under footwear in the "See also:" section. And the footwear wiki is very basic, it should probably mention that it's for outerwear worn on the feet, given the current implications.

legwear: "Legwear are basically garments worn directly on the feet"

hmmmmmmmm

riverinadryland said:
bottomwear = pants, shorts, skirts, etc.
legwear = socks, tights, legwarmers, etc.
footwear = shoes, boots, sandals, etc.

There are a few exceptions where they socks don't reach the legs (ankle socks, no-show socks), but otherwise I think the current implication works fine as is.

Looking at the wikis though, they don't reflect the implications as they are. The legwear wiki has socks listed under footwear in the "See also:" section. And the footwear wiki is very basic, it should probably mention that it's for outerwear worn on the feet, given the current implications.

I disagree. Socks are for feet, not legs. Unless they're super long socks going way above the ankle.

The bulk update request #191 is active.

remove implication socks (64181) -> legwear (302354)
create implication socks (64181) -> footwear (263271)

Reason: Yeah, I concur, it's in wrong category. This should be fixed, even though with 25000+ posts it'll be impossible to completely clean up.

Socks are primarily meant to be worn on feet, not on legs. Some socks are long enough to also cover legs, but they're primarily footwear.

EDIT: The bulk update request #191 (forum #294643) has been approved by @Millcore.

The bulk update request #191 (forum #294643) has been approved by @Millcore.

The bulk update request #193 is active.

Reason: Started cleaning this up, then noticed that there's a whole bunch of color tag implications too.

EDIT: The bulk update request #193 (forum #294653) has failed: Implication for wet_socks not found

EDIT: The bulk update request #193 (forum #294653) has been approved by @Millcore.

You're going to create a huge mess by doing this. If socks are going to imply footwear, then stockings need to as well. The legwear tag as a whole is going to be butchered by these changes.

I always felt like socks were like underwear for legs/foot so legwear makes sense to me rather than footwear, I do understand the footwear point on it but legwear really sounds more correct for me.

But then we have thigh_socks that cover usually foot to thigh, would that be legwear, footwear or both?

The bulk update request #206 has been rejected.

remove implication socks (64181) -> footwear (263271)
create implication socks (64181) -> legwear (302354)

Reason: Unless stockings is going to be a part of footwear too, this needs to be rolled back.

EDIT: The bulk update request #206 (forum #294872) has been rejected by @Millcore.

Maybe we should separate stockings and socks entirely, then. You won't convince me that socks should be categorized the same as pants.

thevileone said:
The bulk update request #206 has been rejected.

remove implication socks (64181) -> footwear (263271)
create implication socks (64181) -> legwear (302354)

Reason: Unless stockings is going to be a part of footwear too, this needs to be rolled back.

If boots are footwear, then so are socks.
Legwear is for clothing that's worn to cover legs. Stockings do cover feet, but their main purpose is legwear. Whereas socks are for feet, and most socks don't even extend to legs. Categorizing them as legwear makes no sense, and causes characters such as sonic (who are only wearing shoes and short socks) to get mistagged with legwear (which, by the way, has always listed socks as footwear. No idea why they got implicated to legwear in the first place).

genjar said:
If boots are footwear, then so are socks.
Legwear is for clothing that's worn to cover legs. Stockings do cover feet, but their main purpose is legwear. Whereas socks are for feet, and most socks don't even extend to legs. Categorizing them as legwear makes no sense, and causes characters such as sonic (who are only wearing shoes and short socks) to get mistagged with legwear (which, by the way, has always listed socks as footwear. No idea why they got implicated to legwear in the first place).

The tags overlap, and are often indistinguishable between socks due to how the artist draws them. All sock and stocking tags share the same tag umbrellas. Separating them creates a huge mess. Articles of clothing that serve the same function (undergarments, and also serve the same artistic function) should not be in separate groups.

Also any garment that covers the leg can be considered legwear, and that means all socks except for ankle_socks are also considered legwear by definition. I would be very careful about trying to fix legwear tags, as most examples deserve to be called legwear, and that should include pretty much all examples that share the umbrella legwear tags.

It will be less of a mess if socks still imply legwear, because in the vast majority of cases they meet the definition of legwear and can share the tags with stockings without stockings having to be labeled as footwear.

thevileone said:
The tags overlap, and are often indistinguishable between socks due to how the artist draws them. All sock and stocking tags share the same tag umbrellas. Separating them creates a huge mess. Articles of clothing that serve the same function (undergarments, and also serve the same artistic function) should not be in separate groups.

This seems irrelevant to the discussion. Nobody's suggesting moving the clothing worn on legs -- such as stockings and thigh highs, which aren't part of the the socks umbrella -- to footwear. The stockings wiki even says: 'not to be confused with socks'.

As for thigh_socks, those can be implicated directly to legwear, instead of using the root tag for it. Like you said, it's okay for some clothing to be in multiple categories, so it shouldn't matter that those get implicated to both footwear and legwear.

Not to mention that all outside sources I could find list socks as footwear. Such as wikipedia.

It will be less of a mess if socks still imply legwear, because in the vast majority of cases they meet the definition of legwear and can share the tags with stockings without stockings having to be labeled as footwear.

Vast majority of cases, really? See sonic legwear -thigh_highs socks.

strikerman said:
You won't convince me that socks should be categorized the same as pants.

Well, that wouldn't be an issue anyway. Pants are considered bottomwear not legwear.

I'm still of the opinion that footwear should refer to forms of outerwear, while legwear refers to forms of underwear. For example, tights are generally worn under skirts and socks are worn under shoes.

bottomwear and legwear are different???

strikerman said:
bottomwear and legwear are different???

Bottomwear is worn on hips/pelvis, legwear is for the region between feet and hips, and footwear is for feet.

genjar said:
This seems irrelevant to the discussion. Nobody's suggesting moving the clothing worn on legs -- such as stockings and thigh highs, which aren't part of the the socks umbrella -- to footwear. The stockings wiki even says: 'not to be confused with socks'.

As for thigh_socks, those can be implicated directly to legwear, instead of using the root tag for it. Like you said, it's okay for some clothing to be in multiple categories, so it shouldn't matter that those get implicated to both footwear and legwear.

Vast majority of cases, really? See sonic legwear -thigh_highs socks.

I did, because socks and stockings often serve functionally the same purpose, and are very difficult to tell apart following TWYS. The fact that they are so closely related, but if one gets tagged as socks it gets tagged as footwear, but if it gets tagged as the other it doesn't even though design wise, it looks ambiguous what it is. If we were following TWYS, then ambiguous thigh highs would be treated as footwear, because we are changing the definition of what qualifies as footwear.

post #2223152

This doesn't look like a sock apart from the trim countershading. Usually hard materials are associated with stockings, not socks, but the designs can be literally the same thing using different material. But you are arguing that one is supposed to be footwear and the other is legwear even though they can look almost identical.

We are changing the definition of what footwear looks like to something that is very hard to distinguish between legwear and depends on how much detail the artist put in. I think it is much more reasonable to define footwear as outerwear for the feet, and anything else should be legwear. Either that or any article of clothing that covers the feet should be footwear, which would include most stockings. These definitions avoid this nasty grey area between socks and stockings.

thevileone said:
We are changing the definition of what footwear looks like to something that is very hard to distinguish between legwear and depends on how much detail the artist put in. I think it is much more reasonable to define footwear as outerwear for the feet, and anything else should be legwear. Either that or any article of clothing that covers the feet should be footwear, which would include most stockings. These definitions avoid this nasty grey area between socks and stockings.

I think introducing layers to it would make it more confusing.
Feetwear/legwear should follow the same logic as handwear/armwear: if I search for legwear instead of footwear, ít should find clothing that actually covers more than feet.

genjar said:
I think introducing layers to it would make it more confusing.
Feetwear/legwear should follow the same logic as handwear/armwear: if I search for legwear instead of footwear, ít should find clothing that actually covers more than feet.

Calling socks footwear and conditionally legwear made a situation that was confusing before a lot more confusing and harder to follow TWYS guidelines. IDK what to tell you. The system worked and made intuitive sense despite being less accurate. Now footwear can be nearly identical to footwear unless we have a broad statement that includes any garment that covers the feet, and this has to be as loose as possible.

- Any garment that covers the hand -> handwear
- Any garment that covers the feet -> footwear

Having a list of clothing exceptions will be confusing and violate TWYS guidelines.

I don't think it was a problem to clarify the definition of footwear to mean outerwear since that's how it has been for many years, and we have had no big problems with topwear and bottomwear having similar terms.

thevileone said:
- Any garment that covers the hand -> handwear
- Any garment that covers the feet -> footwear

Having a list of clothing exceptions will be confusing and violate TWYS guidelines.

I don't know what to tell you either, since this makes absolutely no sense to me. Socks are garments that cover feet, yet you keep insisting that they're legwear instead of footwear.

And how does it violate TWYS, when you can literally see where the clothing is worn? If it's worn on feet, it's footwear. If it's worn on legs, it's legwear. If it's worn on both, then it's both.

genjar said:
I don't know what to tell you either, since this makes absolutely no sense to me. Socks are garments that cover feet, yet you keep insisting that they're legwear instead of footwear.

And how does it violate TWYS, when you can literally see where the clothing is worn? If it's worn on feet, it's footwear. If it's worn on legs, it's legwear. If it's worn on both, then it's both.

That's what I needed to know. No controversy here.

The bulk update request #206 (forum #294872) has been rejected by @Millcore.

The bulk update request #193 (forum #294653) has failed: Implication for wet_socks not found

The bulk update request #193 (forum #294653) has been approved by @Millcore.