The armpits tag is more nuanced than it might first appear. Different people, evidently, have different assumptions about where "the area ... directly under the joint where the arm connects to the shoulder" (as the wiki puts it) begins and ends.

So, where do we draw the line? I'd like to hear specifically from people who routinely search for armpits or who have armpits blacklisted.

Here are some examples of borderline (in my opinion) cases, all currently tagged armpits:

post #1006360 post #1007731 post #1007451 post #1005116 post #1003557

Feel free to add your own in a reply.

Whatever we decide on, the wiki should be updated to have clear examples of what does and does not count. A tagging_guidelines_illustrated picture would be nice.

I guess, maybe it's a matter of how much the viewer cares? To me, I care very little, to the point where the idea of tagging it all would probably fall under my radar if unprompted (same level of notice as if someone suddenly said it was important whether elbow fur tuft went up vs down or something). But I guess people searching for it a lot or blacklisting it probably have similar spectra of wanting to find or avoid little hints all the way to central focus. Personally, I'd generally expect to see something more like your first example, and mayyyybe the second one, but I totally see how it would make sense with probably all but the last there. It's kind of like, I've seen image board threads saying "footpaw thread," where if it weren't titled that, I'd have no idea that the images shown were made for that particular fetish. So I guess - do you start from a standpoint of it being as non-debatable as possible? The looser the definition is, the more inoffensive pics will be lost by blacklisters and the more noise searchers will get. And for those who don't care, it doesn't matter whether the tag was there to begin with. Personally, if I were starting from scratch and trying to find the most likely candidates, I'd start searching raised_arm and arms_above_head and assume that would include the lion's share of the appropriate results.

post #1006471 post #1006713 post #1005734 post #1007270 post #922438

Get Eppleblam in here.

If you can't see the "pit" of the armpit, then there's no armpit. So all the "borderline" posts that are linked are mistagged.

At least that's my opinion. Otherwise you'd be tagging something that you can't see.

As this site's EXTREME "armpits" tagger, I'd like to chime in.

I'd consider the first and second to count because the first one's raised arm position and that while there's no specific detail line for the "pit", the arms are in a position where you would see it. The underarm area is still there, even without any detail lines.

Second pic you can see it, though it's not front-and-center, because of the angle the viewer is. Pictures from this sort of angle are wishy-washy and are not always counting, in my opinion. However, I feel that one counts, too.

Third pic, you can see the pit of the arm, though the camera is facing at a bit of a downward angle at Arcanine. You can see the area underneath the shoulder, still. It's there.

Fouth pic, armpit is visible on the Khajiit on both sides, but especially (our) right side. It's not in a raised arm position or anything but it's still visible because her shoulders are angled away from her chest. You can see the area of her armpit because of this.

Fifth pic, kind of the same thing as #4, though to less of an extent. I agree it can be a bit wishy-washy but I felt that the right side kind of shows off this area, too, like you're looking up into the armpit area while the shoulder is mostly against the body. What also helps, I think, are the little sketch detail lines, which are showing off a bit more of the armpit area. Of all 5 pics, I say this one is probably the "weakest", but I still feel it applies.

Of course, the examples notnobody supplied are clearly the easiest kind of picture to tag with "armpits", but as for general rules I usually say that:

The "pit" isn't always necessary. Specific little detail lines showing the center of the armpit are always nice, but what counts in more instances is simply the area of the armpit; seeing the space underneath the shoulder counts to me. There are many pictures I come across where I tag them because you don't see the center or a lot of detail lines, but because you see that area under the shoulder, and it's actually a space not just outside the shoulder, I count it. Just look at the third example with Arcanine again. You don't see the very exact PINPOINT center, but you see most of the area around what the center would be and under the shoulder.

Eppleblam said:
EXTREME "armpits" tagger

So when you're looking to see some armpits in general, how far down do you still find it applicably interesting? Like, in a really muscular one like the arcanine one with the dumbbell, since he has such bulky pecs and lats, that ditch area extends far down. But with someone super waify, there's barely a ditch to speak of, but you can sort of see it even with their arms hanging loosely at their sides. Could you sort of put a pin into where it hits the point where you cut off its eligibility?

notnobody said:
Could you sort of put a pin into where it hits the point where you cut off its eligibility?

I think posts that count because of the surrounding underarm area ("ditch") would include:
post #1007757 (because you can see upwards into the armpit)
post #1007069 post #907977 (you can see the surrounding area under the shoulder
post #1004509 (similar to first example, you can see somewhat upwards and also straight-ahead into the underarm area)

I find it hard to come up with concrete rules for "All images X work, All images Y don't". I know I'm trying to use general rules, but I often also take on a post-by-post basis, depending on if I see enough under-shoulder area.

I usually just go by how much under-shoulder area I see and how much of this area is actually in angular view of the camera. I'm sure I've made a few mistakes, but I generally keep to these, admittedly loose, rules.

I think your definition for armpits is a bit too loose and I'd request to hear opinion of other users about it.

Armpits should only be tagged on images where this specific area is prominent enough that it would be considered a "special feature" on the image.

So I think opinion of more users would be needed to decide when exactly is this area "special" enough for them to consider it to be satisfactory to their armpits fetish.

I would guess that it's only special when a lot of work/details is put into drawing this area, and not simply because there's a slight possibility that this area might be featured on the image.

For instance
post #878685
you could tag with an armpits. But you won't.

Eppleblam said:
.. I generally keep to these, admittedly loose, rules.

I don't really see any obvious room for improvement there. It might be good to have guidelines like that in the wiki or something. Functionally, I imagine if anybody majorly loves or hates pits, that should help them find or exclude what they want most effectively. Anybody inside of those margins probably just won't notice or care about the difference.

Delian said:
I think your definition for armpits is a bit too loose and I'd request to hear opinion of other users about it.

Armpits should only be tagged on images where this specific area is prominent enough that it would be considered a "special feature" on the image.

You're holding the armpits tag to higher standard than all the other tags. I'm not putting "armpit_fetish" on all these images, I'm putting the general tag. Meanwhile, here are some very loose and very popular tags that are tagged without these highs standards:

Breasts: the wiki says to tag these if they are "present in a scene...no matter if the character is clothed, or nude". They are to be tagged for every image, even images like post #1005156 and post #1004578, where they aren't even main parts of the image or focused on.

Butt: "This tag is used if a butt is visible or, more usually, prominently featured, regardless of whether it is clothed or not."
post #1007873 post #988945 post #926714
These images don't particularly emphasize the butt (the third one does by placing text on it, but the butt itself is not very emphasized in shape/size)

These tags are meant to be on posts that HAVE their specific attributes, not specifically ONLY if they are EMPHASIZED.

Eppleblam said:
... not specifically ONLY if they are EMPHASIZED.

Yeah, I think they're all the same. Same value, same reasonable guidelines. Guess, yeah, I was mainly viewing it from a fetish standpoint, just because that seems like the main driving point for any tag. Seems reasonable enough as is though.

sorry if I have mistakes on my comment, english is not my mother language.
we should tag armpits when they are visible, example: if there's a pic of a gal with a sleeveles shirt, but is not raising its arms, like the undyne pic shown up there, is not necessary, but if its has its hands on her hips/waist, it should be tagged, there's also pics of creatures raisings its arms but we can not see its armpits.
armpit tagging should be done on every pic that armpits are visible, not just the fetish ones like my profile pic, armpits are not just for fetish, they can just be a detail

Can I ask like, why you're tagging every picture on the site with armpit and like nothing else? It's really weird and offputting considering like, it in no way is helping people find images they might want, and if they had a paraphilia for armpit sex or whatever (I ain't trying to judge), like then the tag should be used in pictures that are clearly showcasing it as a center of appeal, but when it's used everywhere it'd be like difficult to use the tag because every picture has it even if the person has their arms mostly down in a neutral pose.

Like it seems weirdly being watered down by somebody with a specific fetish for it because it's not like people tag every single body part like "This person nostrils and a torso and is corporeal and not a ghost".

DamienG said:
Can I ask like, why you're tagging every picture on the site with armpit and like nothing else? It's really weird and offputting considering like, it in no way is helping people find images they might want

You're acting as if that's a weird and unheard of. It's not. There are many people on this site who go around tagging a select few tags. It's even encouraged, especially with threads dedicated to tagging projects

the tag should be used in pictures that are clearly showcasing it as a center of appeal, but when it's used everywhere it'd be like difficult to use the tag because every picture has it

I gave examples above of how many tags on this site, such as "butt" and "breasts", that are often used even when they're not the focus of the image. They're meant to be used whenever they're present AT ALL. Some tags even have specific tags for if they ARE the focus (for example, "Foot_focus" in addition to "feet").