Reason: Unguligrades include things like horses and deer. As Genjar said,

I'd say that Unguligrade is as valid as a tag as plantigrade and digitigrade.

Because it's aliased to hooves, and tags like horse imply Unguligrade, you have tons of pictures permanently tagged with hooves, when they're not in in picture.

post #495143

post #493932

post #492737

post #487142

Seconding this suggestion. Some aliases just don't work and need rolled back, because there's just too many exceptions where the tag doesn't automatically belong. I think this is one of those situations.

I concur.

I'm against it. How can you say it applies unguligrade if you can't see the hooves?

NotAPervert said:
I'm against it. How can you say it applies unguligrade if you can't see the hooves?

This. Those posts are mistags regardless if they were tagged with unguligrade or hooves. These *grade tags are not species umbrella tags. We already have enough of those.

NotAPervert said:
I'm against it. How can you say it applies unguligrade if you can't see the hooves?

The same way you can tag plantigrade and digitigrade without seeing their feet. The definition of an unguligrade isn't something that has hooves. It's a classification of locomotion for large mammals that have hooves, based on the way their feet contact the ground. Deer, mules, horses, etc. are all classified as unguligrades, and you don't need hooves to see that they're deer, mules, and horses.

DrHorse said:
This. Those posts are mistags regardless if they were tagged with unguligrade or hooves. These *grade tags are not species umbrella tags. We already have enough of those.

There's only three *grade classifications. We use two of them, so it would be silly to just not use the third.

At the very least, we need to remove the implication of Unguligrade from all the species tags to take care of the incorrect hooves tags.

SirAntagonist said:
There's only three *grade classifications. We use two of them, so it would be silly to just not use the third.

At the very least, we need to remove the implication of Unguligrade from all the species tags to take care of the incorrect hooves tags.

Unguligrade implies not a single other tag. If you would just look at the wiki that you keep linking, then you would see that. The only reason plantigrade and digitagrade are needed is because both are a type of paws. Hooves will only ever be Unguligrade and Unguligrade will only ever be hooves, therefore an alias is 100% appropriate. What would be silly is dealiasing it just for the sake of "fairness."

DrHorse said:
Unguligrade implies not a single other tag. If you would just look at the wiki that you keep linking, then you would see that. The only reason plantigrade and digitagrade are needed is because both are a type of paws. Hooves will only ever be Unguligrade and Unguligrade will only ever be hooves, therefore an alias is 100% appropriate. What would be silly is dealiasing it just for the sake of "fairness."

I never said unguligrade implied anything. It's aliased to hooves. I was talking about horse and the like implying unguligrade, and therefor hooves. (But it looks like someone already removed those implications.)

It's not about "fairness". It's about rationality. Aliasing unguligrade to hooves is like aliasing avian to wings. The tag is a classification of animal that's aliased to a part of an animal. A horse is still an unguligrade whether or not you can see it's hooves.

Even if we don't use the tag, the alias still needs to be removed.

SirAntagonist said:
Aliasing unguligrade to hooves is like aliasing avian to wings.

No it's not. You can have wings without birds (bees) and you can have birds without wings (toucan with it's wings ripped off). You can't have an ungulate without hooves. It literally means "with hooves"

SirAntagonist said:
It's not about "fairness". It's about rationality. Aliasing unguligrade to hooves is like aliasing avian to wings. The tag is a classification of animal that's aliased to a part of an animal. A horse is still an unguligrade whether or not you can see it's hooves.

A horse standing on humans legs would not be unguligrade. A dog standing on human legs would also not be digitigrade. If that is not how they are being tagged then we need to take a step back and seriously consider if these *grade tags are still valid under TWYS.

DrHorse said:
No it's not. You can have wings without birds (bees) and you can have birds without wings (toucan with it's wings ripped off). You can't have an ungulate without hooves. It literally means "with hooves"
A horse standing on humans legs would not be unguligrade. A dog standing on human legs would also not be digitigrade. If that is not how they are being tagged then we need to take a step back and seriously consider if these *grade tags are still valid under TWYS.

That's a completely ass-backwards way of looking at the analogy.

An ungulate is different from an unguligrade. Unguligrade is a way for classifying an animal's movement. An Ungulate is a taxonomic classification of an animal. Hell, cetacea are technically ungulates.

Horses are still unguligrades in pictures like these.

Dogs are still digitigrades in pictures like these.

If you want to argue that the tags should only be used when you can see the actual feet, be my guest. But if a dog loses it's legs, that doesn't automatically take away it's status of "digitigrade".

SirAntagonist said:
If you want to argue that the tags should only be used when you can see the actual feet, be my guest. But if a dog loses it's legs, that doesn't automatically take away it's status of "digitigrade".

Then what does? What makes a dog digitigrade? As you've pointed out digitigrade is not just a taxanomic classification. So why would we tag a dog with clearly plantigrade feet digitigrade instead?

DrHorse said:
Then what does? What makes a dog digitigrade? As you've pointed out digitigrade is not just a taxanomic classification. So why would we tag a dog with clearly plantigrade feet digitigrade instead?

To say what SA has not quite said yet:
Unguligrade, digitigrade, plantigrade are about leg structure (so you don't need to see feet to classify them).

If you tack plantigrade feet onto the end of a digitigrade leg structure, the tagging should probably be 'hybrid' and 'digitigrade'
Similarly, if you tack hooves onto a humanlike leg structure, the tags warranted are 'plantigrade' and 'hooves'. Because these encompass the majority part of what is shown.

The problem IMO just arises from the fact that unguligrade is a leg structure that happens to, in nature, always end in hooves, but the same is not true in art. The 'hooves' rule then becomes a useful simplification rather than a truism.

DrHorse said:
Then what does? What makes a dog digitigrade? As you've pointed out digitigrade is not just a taxanomic classification. So why would we tag a dog with clearly plantigrade feet digitigrade instead?

Savageorange pretty much got it.

The *grade classification isn't just for how mammal's feet look. It's describing how they move. This encompasses leg structure, stance, and foot structure.

savageorange said:
To say what SA has not quite said yet:
Unguligrade, digitigrade, plantigrade are about leg structure (so you don't need to see feet to classify them).

If you tack plantigrade feet onto the end of a digitigrade leg structure, the tagging should probably be 'hybrid' and 'digitigrade'
Similarly, if you tack hooves onto a humanlike leg structure, the tags warranted are 'plantigrade' and 'hooves'. Because these encompass the majority part of what is shown.

The problem IMO just arises from the fact that unguligrade is a leg structure that happens to, in nature, always end in hooves, but the same is not true in art. The 'hooves' rule then becomes a useful simplification rather than a truism.

Then someone should re-do the wiki on plantigrade because it makes it sound like to tag plantigrade on anything that walks on the metatarsals and makes no mention of any kind of leg structure. Same goes for digitigrade

Although tagging by leg structure instead of foot structure might cause a lot of mis-tagging due to it being hard to tell a lot of times especially if we are going to completely ignore the foot when deciding if something is.

pc-king said:
Then someone should re-do the wiki on plantigrade because it makes it sound like to tag plantigrade on anything that walks on the metatarsals and makes no mention of any kind of leg structure. Same goes for digitigrade

Although tagging by leg structure instead of foot structure might cause a lot of mis-tagging due to it being hard to tell a lot of times especially if we are going to completely ignore the foot when deciding if something is.

If someone is mis-tagging, then most likely not enough of the leg structure is visible, and I'm not sure that we can do anything about that, whatever rules we go for. Best we could do is say 'don't tag leg structure if less than 70% of the leg is visible'

I wouldn't really object to tagging 'plantigrade' on the first example I gave; it's just that I think that particular hybridization is rare enough that 'hybrid' is more useful.

(It is definitely judgeable from less -- looking at this reference , it can be reduced to 'angles between 2 major bones', but that requires an educated eye and sometimes just can't be guessed accurately.)

Tagging digitigrade on the basis of feet is already not a great idea. Tagging digitigrade on the basis of toes is a decent idea.

savageorange said:
Tagging digitigrade on the basis of feet is already not a great idea. Tagging digitigrade on the basis of toes is a decent idea.

I agree but you can also have plantigrade standing on their tip toes as well. I usually tag digitigrade when a specious is standing on their tip toes and it looks like they have unusually long feet like
post #480011
But to play devil's advocate, then you have pictures like this
post #482006
with human like feet standing on tiptoes as well, so going on the basis of toes might not work either

pc-king said:
I agree but you can also have plantigrade standing on their tip toes as well. I usually tag digitigrade when a specious is standing on their tip toes and it looks like they have unusually long feet like
post #480011
But to play devil's advocate, then you have pictures like this
post #482006
with human like feet standing on tiptoes as well, so going on the basis of toes might not work either

Good point. The first picture has a plantigrade leg structure, but have digitigrade feet. I'd say the second is mostly plantigrade.

I guess the question to ask would be: which is more important to tag, leg shape or foot type?

We could solve it by creating the tags Plantigrade_foot and digitigrade_foot, but that seems redundant. Hybrids of the three also seem confusing, and wouldn't make any sense to people who just see an anthro wolf.

SirAntagonist said:
Good point. The first picture has a plantigrade leg structure, but have digitigrade feet. I'd say the second is mostly plantigrade.

I guess the question to ask would be: which is more important to tag, leg shape or foot type?

We could solve it by creating the tags Plantigrade_foot and digitigrade_foot, but that seems redundant. Hybrids of the three also seem confusing, and wouldn't make any sense to people who just see an anthro wolf.

Well since foot fetish is a thing, and we have tags like foot_focus because of it, I'd say more people would be searching for foot structures and not legs structures, so foot type should be more important.

The flip side is this whole thing started with someone wanting to search of equine legs, so maybe keep the current plantigrade digitigrade etc as it, and come up with a new tag for legs so all the posts that have been tagged based off feet don't need to be cleaned and re-tagged?

pc-king said:
Well since foot fetish is a thing, and we have tags like foot_focus because of it, I'd say more people would be searching for foot structures and not legs structures, so foot type should be more important.

The flip side is this whole thing started with someone wanting to search of equine legs, so maybe keep the current plantigrade digitigrade etc as it, and come up with a new tag for legs so all the posts that have been tagged based off feet don't need to be cleaned and re-tagged?

We could just use the unguligrade tag for leg type, seeing as the foot type always ends in hoofs.

I don't really have any good suggestions for tagging plantigrade and digitigrade legs.

SirAntagonist said:
We could just use the unguligrade tag for leg type, seeing as the foot type always ends in hoofs.

I don't really have any good suggestions for tagging plantigrade and digitigrade legs.

I agree with using unguligrade for leg type. There are a few plantigrade/hoof pictures out there as well so that's another reason it probably should be de-alias

As for the other thing, I think we should just ignore plantigrade and digitigrade legs and just keep on using it for feet type. After skimming through digitigrade solo standing it seems a lot of anthro artists try to make hybrids of the legs when drawing anthro characters, they never really stay 100% with 1 type unless drawing feral, and would be way too confusing for a lot of users I think.

The only other choice I see would be to replace digitigrade and plantigrade with
digitigrade_legs and plantigrade_legs
digitigrade_feet and plantigrade_feet

But that's a ton of tag fixing though and I think in a lot of cases it would be too hard to tell and the tag would go unused.
but that's like, my opinion, man

pc-king said:
I agree with using unguligrade for leg type. There are a few plantigrade/hoof pictures out there as well so that's another reason it probably should be de-alias

As for the other thing, I think we should just ignore plantigrade and digitigrade legs and just keep on using it for feet type. After skimming through digitigrade solo standing it seems a lot of anthro artists try to make hybrids of the legs when drawing anthro characters, they never really stay 100% with 1 type unless drawing feral, and would be way too confusing for a lot of users I think.

The only other choice I see would be to replace digitigrade and plantigrade with
digitigrade_legs and plantigrade_legs
digitigrade_feet and plantigrade_feet

But that's a ton of tag fixing though and I think in a lot of cases it would be too hard to tell and the tag would go unused.
but that's like, my opinion, man

That's probably the most viable option, but it does require a lot of fixing.

The only other idea I could think of would be to create some weird frankentag like "anthrograde" to encompass things like that. (but that's idiotic)

It would be great to hear some input from an admin.