Topic: [FAILED] Give an Inch Take a Foot (large, foot-related BUR)

The bulk update request #350 is active.

Reason: any of these requested to be implied to feet can only apply to posts where part or all of a character's foot is shown; ditto with the toes tags.

there's also some x_on_y, x_in_y, and size tag standardization.

EDIT: The bulk update request #350 (forum #298448) has failed: Error: Antecedent tag must not be aliased to another tag (create implication bird_feet -> feet)

EDIT: The bulk update request #350 (forum #298448) has failed: Error: foot_on_penis already implies feet through another implication (create implication foot_on_penis -> feet)

EDIT: The bulk update request #350 (forum #298448) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

Shouldn't toe_curl imply toes instead of feet?

Also two-tone should be two_tone. Monotone is missing.

thevileone said:
Shouldn't toe_curl imply toes instead of feet?

I think that toe_curl would still be applicable to characters with featureless_feet (characters that don't have visibly distinct toes).

thevileone said:
Also two-tone should be two_tone. Monotone is missing.

fixed

I'm thinking of changing the implication of webbed_feet from "-> feet" to "-> toes". I can't think of a situation where the webbed_feet tag would apply on a character without visible/countable toes.

darryus said:
I'm thinking of changing the implication of webbed_feet from "-> feet" to "-> toes". I can't think of a situation where the webbed_feet tag would apply on a character without visible/countable toes.

I think it makes sense. The ends of the toes still seem to be considered digits for most cases, but webbed feet also counts for flipper like feet like this. I think even stubs like these examples have been considered as digits, and can be countable. This seems supported by the description of the digits even for webbed varieties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_feet_and_legs#Webbing_and_lobation

post #2259109 post #1188664

The pros to this is that it would allow these unusual examples of digits to get tagged when many are unsure what they are. The concerns are if you can identify a webbed foot from an angle that obscures the digits from its shape and species it is attached to. One of the identifiers of certain webbed feet related to birds is the formation of the foot, and that depending on if the bird is semi-aquatic, the foot may still be sufficiently different than a non-aquatic bird foot to suggest this tag.

I am looking for counter examples from tagged examples, but I haven't found one yet. If there is an example it must be pretty rare, and the benefits of such an implication probably outweigh the rare exception. Not having the implication does filter out some of the low quality examples of digits from being considered as "toes", but in the long run if they resemble toes, they should inevitably get tagged as such.

Example

A character with not very well defined digits. It is hard to find examples that are actually tagged as webbed feet. I am getting examples by searching through the duck tag.

post #2413290

The tags 0_toes, no_toes, and toeless could do with an alias to featureless_feet as well.

The bulk update request #350 (forum #298448) has failed: Error: Antecedent tag must not be aliased to another tag (create implication bird_feet -> feet)

darryus said:
create implication foot_fetish (39550) -> feet (455957)
create implication tickling_feet (2471) -> feet (455957)

Wouldn't it be possible to do these things with feet without the feet being visible? E.g. a character giving a footjob (which implies foot_fetish) when the foot obscured but it's clear a foot is getting someone off, or clear indication someone is laughing because their feet are being tickled when they're out of frame.

darryus said:
create implication bird_feet (0) -> feet (455957)

I think this (and avian_feet) should be aliased. It's essentially just indicating things we already tag, like anisodactyl/zygodactyl and scuted_legs/scuted_feet.

auto_moderator said:
The bulk update request #350 (forum #298448) has failed: Error: Antecedent tag must not be aliased to another tag (create implication bird_feet -> feet)

well, fuck I can't update the BUR myself because it's from before the limit and now it's too long... so, I don't really know what to do

watsit said:
Wouldn't it be possible to do these things with feet without the feet being visible? E.g. a character giving a footjob (which implies foot_fetish) when the foot obscured but it's clear a foot is getting someone off, or clear indication someone is laughing because their feet are being tickled when they're out of frame.

ahh... hmmm... yeah, probably. although, I thought there was a separate tag for a footjob with shoes on, but either way.

also cyan_feet is in there and that needs to be changed to teal_feet

The bulk update request #350 (forum #298448) has failed: Error: foot_on_penis already implies feet through another implication (create implication foot_on_penis -> feet)

The bulk update request #350 (forum #298448) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

auto_moderator said:
The bulk update request #350 (forum #298448) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

ope-- okay, I was going to split them up into 3 BURs and fix the few remaining errors, but okay.

I still think toe_claws should imply toes, since if the claws are countable than the toe digit count tags would apply so, that's imply toes, but whatever, not a big deal.

juansanchez said:
ope-- okay, I was going to split them up into 3 BURs and fix the few remaining errors, but okay.

I still think toe_claws should imply toes, since if the claws are countable than the toe digit count tags would apply so, that's imply toes, but whatever, not a big deal.

What if the claws are visible but the toes aren't (mostly_offscreen_character)

snpthecat said:
What if the claws are visible but the toes aren't (mostly_offscreen_character)

Can you distinguish between toe_claws and finger_claws (and wing_claws) if you can't see the toes/fingers/etc they're attached to? You can tag just claws if you can't tell.

watsit said:
Can you distinguish between toe_claws and finger_claws (and wing_claws) if you can't see the toes/fingers/etc they're attached to? You can tag just claws if you can't tell.

hmmm, actually there's a better example
What if the character is wearing boots so the toes don't get shown, but the toe claws pierce the front of the boot?

snpthecat said:
hmmm, actually there's a better example
What if the character is wearing boots so the toes don't get shown, but the toe claws pierce the front of the boot?

if the digits are visible enough to be "countable" (i.e. could have one of the <#>_toes applied if all of said digits were visible) than they're tagged as toes, it's just easier that way.

snpthecat said:
hmmm, actually there's a better example
What if the character is wearing boots so the toes don't get shown, but the toe claws pierce the front of the boot?

found an example of that for you (I think)

post #1768546

snpthecat said:
hmmm, actually there's a better example
What if the character is wearing boots so the toes don't get shown, but the toe claws pierce the front of the boot?

juansanchez said:
if the digits are visible enough to be "countable" (i.e. could have one of the <#>_toes applied if all of said digits were visible) than they're tagged as toes, it's just easier that way.

I suppose it depends if we want to tag toe claws as the toes themselves. If we consider the toe claws distinct from the toes, then SNPtheCat gives a good example of when you could tag toe_claws without toes. But if they're an inextricable part of the toe, then you couldn't tag toe_claws without toes (same as how we imply penis from penis_tip). Interestingly, toes implies feet, when I would think they could be tagged separately (severed toes wouldn't be connected to feet).

watsit said:
I suppose it depends if we want to tag toe claws as the toes themselves. If we consider the toe claws distinct from the toes, then SNPtheCat gives a good example of when you could tag toe_claws without toes. But if they're an inextricable part of the toe, then you couldn't tag toe_claws without toes (same as how we imply penis from penis_tip). Interestingly, toes implies feet, when I would think they could be tagged separately (severed toes wouldn't be connected to feet).

I think the answer to that would be to say say that maybe we should keep the severed_* tags from implying their respective body parts... but I'm just... not sure if I can come up with a good... justification for that.

If you want amendments, please feel free to make another BUR and message me, and I'll take a look.

rainbow_dash said:
If you want amendments, please feel free to make another BUR and message me, and I'll take a look.

the two things I brought up should probably be handled separately anyway. the whole cyan -> teal alias discussion ahould probably be handled with its own big BUR, and the toe_claws -> toes standalone alias request was rejected previously, so it should probably be rediscussed on its own.