toes -> invalid_tag

Tag fulfills no propose for searches. Another redundant tag that seems to have been forgotten when other tags like hand or skin where all invalidated...

Note that because of the alias to toe the alias tool doesnt seem to be working here.

Toe counts imply it, though.

Ruku said:
redundant

post #1035885

titanmelon said:
post #1035885

And your point???

Ruku said:
And your point???

Not toes. Saying it's a redundant tag is saying everything has toes

Furrin_Gok said:
Not toes. Saying it's a redundant tag is saying everything has toes

By that direction of thought everything should have legs or hands because they have been invalidated which is not true sence titanmelons example it self has no legs. Tail is invalidated as well even thoe not everything not even all animal species have tails and by your description every single thing should have a tail sence it has been invalidated.

Ruku said:
By that direction of thought everything should have legs or hands because they have been invalidated which is not true sence titanmelons example it self has no legs. Tail is invalidated as well even thoe not everything not even all animal species have tails and by your description every single thing should have a tail sence it has been invalidated.

The point is that the reason they were invalidated was not for redundancy.

Exactly, to both all of that

Additionally:

no_arms
legless

https://e621.net/tag_alias?query=no_*&aliased_to=invalid_tag&user=&approved=all&forum_post=all&order=tag

--
Issues like these have been discussed previously, but nothing definitive seems to have happened

Furrin_Gok said:
The point is that the reason they were invalidated was not for redundancy.

forum #132878

again i see no difference between the 2 so again 2 things that are the same in regards to usefulness, why is one aliased and the other not? You have given no reason why this alias here is wrong.

Toes are usually covered, unlike hands and skin and tails. A more appropriate analogy would be navel.

It's not as redundant as the fingers tag, at least. We've been thinking of invalidating that one. Because keeping it, plus the #_fingers tags and humanoid_hands (which requires visible fingers to tag) is too much.

But many types of feet have toes, not just humanoid. So the toes tag isn't as redundant as fingers.

And if we're keeping the feet tag, then I suppose it makes sense to keep toes too.

Genjar said:
It's not as redundant as the fingers tag, at least. We've been thinking of invalidating that one. Because keeping it, plus the #_fingers tags and humanoid_hands (which requires visible fingers to tag) is too much.

But many types of feet have toes, not just humanoid. So the toes tag isn't as redundant as fingers.

And if we're keeping the feet tag, then I suppose it makes sense to keep toes too.

And we humanoid_feet, #_toes just like fingers and there are animal species that do have hands that may not look human but are non the less a type of hand too so...

Beanjam said:
Toes are usually covered, unlike hands and skin and tails. A more appropriate analogy would be navel.

not really since navel is just that navel, there or not there, there is no higher specifier(small,huge,inny,outy,1,2,3, long,multi_navel eta....) to it as opposed to the other tags discussed here and all the body specific tags that so far have been invalidated.

Ruku said:
not really since navel is just that navel, there or not there, there is no higher specifier(small,huge,inny,outy,1,2,3, long,multi_navel eta....) to it as opposed to the other tags discussed here and all the body specific tags that so far have been invalidated.

That doesn't really change anything. If it's something that is usually covered up by clothes, then that makes it notable and therefore worthy of tagging.

+1 eliminating tags that apply to the vast majority of posts and are therefore not conducive to searching. Let's get rid of the fingers, toes, fur and hair tags. It's like tagging eyes, useless!

navel should go but bare_midriff should stay.

leomole said:
+1 eliminating tags that apply to the vast majority of posts and are therefore not conducive to searching. Let's get rid of the fingers, toes, fur and hair tags. It's like tagging eyes, useless!

navel should go but bare_midriff should stay.

What if someone wants to blacklist fur or hair?

Posts containing fur and hair are the vast majority of this site. They're not tagged in many cases because taggers, quite sensibly, don't bother. So fur and hair are not useful on a blacklist anyway.

Even if these were tagged on every single relevant post, users could just use not_furry and bald (which are useful tags because they denote deviations from the norm). There is no good reason to keep the tags fur and hair.

So you would rather make someone blacklist many of these if they don't want to see fur and many of these to avoid seeing hair?

Not_furry doesn't include scalies and does include animal_humanoids which usually have fur (not much, but it's there). bald only only refers to a character's mane (the human one, not the horse or lion one). Facial hair is still hair (but then again, so is fur but let's not get too picky...).

The argument you're presenting is the same one that Danbooru uses to justify never adding the human tag to anything despite all the non-human artwork they have.

BlueDingo said:
So you would rather make someone blacklist many of these if they don't want to see fur and many of these to avoid seeing hair?

That's a ridiculous, impractical solution. Plus like I said, blacklisting fur or hair isn't effective anyway! Search for -fur -hair order:random and take a look, 90% of the results contain fur or hair.

BlueDingo said:
Not_furry doesn't include scalies and does include animal_humanoids which usually have fur.

not_furry does not include animal_humanoids. Please click here: not_furry and read the first paragraph: "furry includes animal humanoid." If you search for not_furry, you should get results that are not furry.

BlueDingo said:
bald only only refers to a character's mane (the human one, not the horse or lion one). Facial hair is still hair.

Yes bald refers only to hair atop the head. And guess what the hair tag refers only to hair atop the head too! You can click here: hair to see all the tags implicated to hair. They're all head hair, not facial hair.

BlueDingo said:
The argument you're presenting is the same one that Danbooru uses to justify never adding the human tag to anything.

If 90% of the posts on a board contain eyes, then eyes should not be a tag. It serves no useful purpose.

Sorry to rag on you so much but literally every argument you made is wrong.