Tag Implications: fishnet_pantyhose -> pantyhose; torn_pantyhose -> pantyhose

These two implications were deleted during the legwear changes but were never re-implied.

These implications are still needed.

jxh2154 will get to it when he has time to do Danbooru stuff. There are a lot of aliases and implications that haven't been done yet.

Readded but implications are a mess right now - like 75% of the ones I put in are erroring out or otherwise giving me messages that don't look good so I can't promise it'll stick.

There is a problem emerging with people half-assing their tags by tagging only the legwear color and not tagging the type of legwear. I've been going through the tags and correcting them, but there is nothing to keep it from happening again.

RiderFan said:
There is a problem emerging with people half-assing their tags by tagging only the legwear color and not tagging the type of legwear. I've been going through the tags and correcting them, but there is nothing to keep it from happening again.

Is there anyway to make it so we can use color_legwear tags? Otherwise its something of a pain and this will keep happening I imagine.

@Anelaid
Do you mean going back to the original way?

Though it was covered by pantyhose + torn / fishnets? etc

I hate myself for not realizing that sooner but the tagging change doesn't appear to be beneficial for widespread color tags, that is, white/black pantyhose/thighhighs/kneehighs/socks.

Other colors have few enough posts so that it's interesting to have the legwear types lumped together, and since they're uncommon you naturally pay more attention when tagging.
But white and black are so ubiquitous that when tagging you want to match color and type directly.
On the bright side the noise with false positives is much lower than I expected, as for better or worse legwear is apparently not that frequently tagged (school_uniform: 4039 pages, school_uniform ~black_legwear ~white_legwear: 245 pages).