(wasn't sure which forum category to put this in so if it's in the wrong one, sorry!)

Some time ago I noticed a few pairs of tights and stockings in odd layers:

Bottom: (+recolours) Feet:

How come they're in those particular layers? The majority of tight/stocking items are in Legs/Ankles so for example if I'm making a HA and I'm searching for a pair of tights and they're not in the category as the same type of items should be, it's a bit confusing.

The layers make sense to me. Tights cover your entire bottoms and are more similar to pants; stockings are only knee to thigh high and are more similar to socks.

yes, but i mean in in a way of.. most tights are in the Legs layer (for example and lots of others) and socks/stockings are in the Legs/Ankles layers, so the thing that doesn't make sense to me are those couple of particular items mentioned in first post because Bottom layer usually houses skirts/shorts/pants etc, and the same goes for Feet layer and footwear (all the shoes, heels etc).

i was just wondering if there's a particular reason for placing, for example , in a Bottom layer instead of Legs layer where the majority of tights items are. c:

For years, there was no arguing with Luxe over layers. Not only did it get her mad it was guaranteed to result in even weirder layers rulings in the future. However, it appears that Amber was doing some layer rationalizations in one of the more recent General Updates, so now maybe it's her who will do this. My current guess: report layering errors in Problems & Bugs -> Art/Content and see what Amber thinks.

unclear layer choices isn't just a problem for tights/stockings, too: waistcoats and vests are spread across Chest and Overchest, and while most dresses are in Chest there are definitely some in Body.
There are a couple threads in S&I dedicated to this: most notably ARA's thread but also this one. Hopefully with the advent of the wig layer some of this nonsense could get sorted out too?

The examples given in the original post make sense to me. : Tights have always been annoying garments that come up to your hips. Stockings tend to come up to the knee and stop either just above or below.

Make it easy. If they're called tights, they belong in legs. Leggings go in bottoms, anything label socks or stockings goes in feet.

Stockings/socks and tights can't be worn by themselves, but leggings can.

That's the most sensible suggestion - I've never understood why tights are in bottom, as I'd expect all of the 'bottom' category to be things you would wear without needing to layer anything on top.

My apologies, is correct, it's and too who's doing this. I got the wrong staff member whose username starts with 'a' and forgot(!) about Keith.

But a lot of other tights belong in the leggings layer (these all go over the hips):

and the other basic tights

I've learned to go to the leg layers for stuff to thinnish things to wear under shorts or ripped jeans. I'm not going to think of going to the bottom layer for the things in OP unless I already tried the legs layer and didn't find it. It only makes sense for those things in OP to be in bottoms in isolation, not when you consider that most items like those are already in legs.

There are a lot things that go beyond the hip that are still called stockings (like ) but I kind of think that those items should just be called tights in the first place.

I was literally coming back to amend what I had said but then I had to go do a couple things and never got the chance.

thanks for all the input, guys. i'm really happy to hear that it's gonna be worked on c: (also i don't follow updates/things being worked on too closely so i'm really excited about wigs being separated!!)

Those aren't the only problems. Body and fullbody get me every time. I get why something like: is in fullbody, its a costume that covers everything. So then why is in body instead of fullbody?

Why are all in body while are all in fullbody?

Almost every layer has items that make no sense, or resemble items which fall into other layers.

Yeah, it seems like in this particular case there are some naming inconsistencies between leggings, stockings, and tights in addition to the layer inconsistencies.

Other examples: - We have these tights which seem to be more like leggings

- And then these "tights" but they only cover part of the leg in a weird spot

- These are stockings but they go up to the HA's chest area

And there are some things with "leggings" in the name which seem like they should probably be called something else.

I don't know enough about clothing name conventions to find and list all of the potential errors, but there is weird stuff in all of the categories.

Regularization of wearable names (independently of what layer they are part of) would require a huge effort, I think.

The fashion world is deliberately inconsistent in naming conventions. People sometimes wanna wear the same thing that they used to wear or were a good solution to past problems but can't because they're unfashionable under the name your mom used for them. Talking clothing terms with someone who is really into clothes is like arguing to a philosopher about ontological categories.

While I was forced to rename by only CW to have a very prosaic and exactly descriptive name, there are many non-CW wears and CWs by established makers that you'd have no idea what layer they go in or whatever they would even look like by their item name. The bath bombs are noses wut?

ah that makes some sense. That would be why the matador is in body - it changes the pose. LOL either way though, I'm forever picking the wrong layer when I'm looking for something specific.

I think it's worth the effort if people can find things without getting frustrated with the wardrobe because things aren't were they expected them to be. I think it also just makes the site just seem more professional to have things cleaned up and more organized.

I also think that the site could do less with items where the item name/icon doesn't really match up with the function (like your bath bomb example) but I think that's a topic for different thread.