Are pantyhose_under_shorts and legwear_under_shorts useful?

BUR #15658 has been rejected.

remove implication legwear_under_shorts -> shorts
mass update pantyhose_under_shorts -pantyhose -> pantyhose
mass update pantyhose_under_shorts -shorts -> shorts
nuke legwear_under_shorts
nuke pantyhose_under_shorts
deprecate legwear_under_shorts
deprecate pantyhose_under_shorts

I don't understand why these two tags exist. Legwear over shorts is exceptionally rare when it isn't impossible (i.e. socks and kneehighs aren't long enough to be "over" most shorts) and if anything the exception should be tagged, not the norm.

Additionally:
pantyhose_under_shorts but not tagged pantyhose: ~ 90 posts
pantyhose_under_shorts but not tagged shorts: ~ 50 posts

The idea of pantyhose under shorts is actually useful for free members wanting to search the simple combo of pantyhose and shorts worn by a single character since a pantyhose + shorts search will include every post containing more than 1 character where at least 1 of them is wearing shorts and at least 1 is wearing pantyhose
If anything:
-Either legwear under shorts should be renamed leggings under shorts to separate the two, or imply pantyhose under shorts -> legwear under shorts, or even just follow the logic of what was done to the pantyhose under shorts wiki and alias it to leggings under shorts because of the cases where it is just hard to differenciate between the two, and/or because there isnt much point in trying to separate them in the first place maybe

and if we keep pantyhose under shorts as is, without implying it to the legwear variant, then it should imply both shorts and pantyhose

Mayhem-Chan said:

The idea of pantyhose under shorts is actually useful for free members wanting to search the simple combo of pantyhose and shorts worn by a single character since a pantyhose + shorts search will include every post containing more than 1 character where at least 1 of them is wearing shorts and at least 1 is wearing pantyhose

This issue is almost always present when searching for more than one tag without adding solo to the search. It's not an issue with any individual tag's existence or potential removal, it's a critique of the way the tag system works in general - just because post #6130616 shows up in a holding_sword holding_gun dual_wielding search, doesn't mean any of those tags are bad.

As for the tags in question, I think they're garbage tandem tags that are completely obsolete with a simple shorts pantyhose or shorts leggings search. Both of these searches will find all properly tagged legwear_under_shorts posts, while also providing the benefit of catching the large number of posts that have been tagged with shorts, pantyhose and leggings, but not legwear_under_shorts. However, given the negative reception lately to nuking even pointless tandem tags, I don't see this BUR as likely to pass.

However, even if we decide to keep legwear_under_shorts, pantyhose_under_shorts should at the very least be aliased to it. The wiki's been deleted for two years and even already directs users to use legwear_under_shorts instead, so at this point it's just a formality. I'll propose a BUR for that as a counter to the original BUR.

BUR #15660 has been rejected.

mass update pantyhose_under_shorts -shorts -> shorts
mass update pantyhose_under_shorts -pantyhose -> pantyhose
create alias pantyhose_under_shorts -> legwear_under_shorts

As above.

Mayhem-Chan said:

The idea of pantyhose under shorts is actually useful for free members wanting to search the simple combo of pantyhose and shorts worn by a single character since a pantyhose + shorts search will include every post containing more than 1 character where at least 1 of them is wearing shorts and at least 1 is wearing pantyhose
If anything:
-Either legwear under shorts should be renamed leggings under shorts to separate the two, or imply pantyhose under shorts -> legwear under shorts, or even just follow the logic of what was done to the pantyhose under shorts wiki and alias it to leggings under shorts because of the cases where it is just hard to differenciate between the two, and/or because there isnt much point in trying to separate them in the first place maybe

and if we keep pantyhose under shorts as is, without implying it to the legwear variant, then it should imply both shorts and pantyhose

TL;DR: Less than one in six posts which could be tagged pantyhose_under_shorts actually are. For legwear_under_shorts, its about one in five. If the purpose of these tags is to serve as convenient combo tags, they are shit at it.

Also, leggings != legwear

Arcana55 said:

Statistics

Assume pantyhose or thighhighs are the only forms of legwear relevant

# of posts tagged pantyhose shorts: 24,483
# of posts tagged pantyhose shorts solo: 11,235 (note that even posts not tagged solo might still contain a single character wearing both)
# of posts tagged pantyhose_under_shorts: 1747

# of posts tagged thighhighs shorts: 54,771
# of posts tagged thighhighs shorts solo: 31,664

In general, when selecting elements from a set based on criteria, (# A OR B) = (# A) + (# B) - (# A AND B)
# of posts tagged (pantyhose AND thighhighs) AND shorts AND solo = 363
# of posts tagged (pantyhose OR thighhighs) AND shorts AND solo = (11,235 + 31,664 - 363) = 42,536
# of posts tagged legwear_under_shorts: 9087

TL;DR: Less than one in six posts which could be tagged pantyhose_under_shorts actually are. For legwear_under_shorts, its about one in five. If the purpose of these tags is to serve as convenient combo tags, they are shit at it.

Also, leggings != legwear

Far from the first case of severe undertagging i've seen tbh

Mayhem-Chan said:

Far from the first case of severe undertagging i've seen tbh

When legwear_under_shorts has existed for over seven years, the undertagging is this severe, and an extremely simple two-tag search gives five times as many results with a low margin for error even without adding solo to the search, then the only conclusion that can be drawn is that it's a terrible tag.

I'm genuinely baffled as to why these BURs to nuke tandem tags are constantly being met with extreme opposition nowadays. It's rather telling that while the downvotes come in droves, there are always precious few counterarguments to the very basic point of "this two-tag search does a better job".

For what it's worth, pantyhose_under_shorts and similar has only existed for 10 months after they were unaliased back in topic #21283.

BUR #15882 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

mass update legwear_under_shorts leggings solo -> leggings_under_shorts -legwear_under_shorts
create alias legwear_under_shorts -> pantyhose_under_shorts
remove alias legwear_under_shorts -> pantyhose_under_shorts
deprecate legwear_under_shorts

The premise of keeping legwear under shorts over pantyhose under shorts is stupid. You can tell whether something is leggings or pantyhose based on whether it has feet, so I can kinda see why some would want separate tags, but the whole argument about thighhighs makes no sense.

thighhighs are never going to be "under" the shorts, unless the shorts are low, and in that case you should just tag it as pantyhose because there's no way to tell them apart. Unless of course you're going by canon, but in that case why would we even have a special tag for "something that's undistinguishable from pantyhose under shorts but I canonically know it's thighhighs so I'm tagging it as thighhighs"?

As for keeping the tag over going for the combo search, I'm neutral, but we don't need both tags.

What's the point of aliasing it if you're deprecating the consequent tag anyway...?

Talulah said:

What's the point of aliasing it if you're deprecating the consequent tag anyway...?

I'm dumb and copypasted the wrong thing. Updated.

We literally just converted legwear to their respective tags (thighhighs, leggings, pantyhose). It makes no sense to alias pantyhose_under_shorts to legwear_under_shorts

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

The bulk update request #15658 (forum #235592) has been rejected by @nonamethanks.

The bulk update request #15660 (forum #235602) has been rejected by @nonamethanks.

The bulk update request #15882 (forum #236682) has been approved by @nonamethanks.