I've noticed that over 300 images have the tag "human_feet" instead of "plantigrade", which is the official term for five-toed, flat-soled, humanoid-style feet. What with the foot fetish being the largest and statistically most prominent fetish on the planet, on top of the "handlebar" vs "intercrural" change (which I think is great, I didn't even know it had an official name), I figured this is a valid change submission.

Discuss.

Ok, you have made a statement.

Now what?

Usually some sort of alias such as human_feet -> plantigrade is suggested.

Yeah, that's... what I was getting at. I guess I forgot to explicitly put that request down. Since plantigrade is already such a large tag pool and has the same meaning as "human_feet" I would suggest that yes, the human_feet tag be changed to an alias for plantigrade without keeping the actual tag.

I'm an idiot, so think what you want about how I'm presenting this, is doesn't take my idiocy in new directions. I've made my point, now I will~ go masturbate with a banana peel.

Wikipedia said:
Humans are an example of a plantigrade species. Other plantigrade species include (but are not limited to) raccoons, opossums, bears, rabbits, kangaroos, mice, red pandas, rats, hyraxes, skunks, hedgehogs and wolverines.

And that's why they're not aliased.

...I don't... I don't understand why that gives cause to it not being aliased. Wouldn't it be better to compact two tags into one, favoring the one that's official, technically correct over the baser description, and already far more popular by number than the alternative? It's an unnecessary pair of tags.

I understand that certain subtleties are taken into issue: some artists draw their subjects with larger feet, less toes, with or without claws, but their general structure stillle qualifies as "plantigrade" and that word itself gives the subject of description a term to define itself that isn't so black-&-white as "human feet." That'd be wrong anyway, because a chinchilla drawn by Brian McPherson doesn't have human feet, they have plantigrade chinchilla feet.

Since I'm sure combining the plantigrade and species tags would be excess, the staff shouldn't see a problem with deleting the defunct "human_feet" tag (which technically leans on a species-specific bias), and making it an alias for "plantigrade" which applies to the same figure on a much wider, more correct scale. I still say this should be done, and I'm sure many others would agree if asked.

Lennox said:
...I don't... I don't understand why that gives cause to it not being aliased.

Because some people have fetish for human_feet, and only human_feet, not any plantigrade.

But if not alias, then there could be implication human_feet -> plantigrade.

Lennox said:
Since I'm sure combining the plantigrade and species tags would be excess, the staff shouldn't see a problem with deleting the defunct "human_feet" tag (which technically leans on a species-specific bias), and making it an alias for "plantigrade" which applies to the same figure on a much wider, more correct scale. I still say this should be done, and I'm sure many others would agree if asked.

We should alias big_penis, huge_penis, hyper_penis and so on to penis, which applies to the same figure on a much wider, more correct scale. We should also alias lion, tiger, caracal, cheetah, couger, jaguar, lynx, panther, and so on to feline. Because they're all felines, so that's a wider, more correct scale.

Wait, no, that would be fucking stupid, because it would break usability in order to enforce broad tags. Narrow tags are useful! They make searching for specific things much easier. And if you want the broad concept, that's why we can imply narrow tags to broad tags.

An implication would be justified here. An alias would break usability for some idea of correctness (and I'm far from convinced that "if something falls under a larger category, only the larger category should be tagged" is a good idea of correctness).

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
But if not alias, then there could be implication human_feet -> plantigrade.

Nope

MaShCr said:
Nope

I'm not sure that that's an appropriate usage of the human_feet tag.

MaShCr said:
Nope

Fucking burn that mutant! Kill it with fire!

MaShCr said:
Nope

At the risk of "necro'ing", are you implying that we should also have tags like human ears, human nose, human teeth, etc because humans who also have facial features differ from other species? I figured the only implication of "human feet" specifically would apply to, y'know, humans. They're plantigrade either way. Speaking of which, those are not human feet. Those are digitgrade, which has already been tagged on that picture.

Snowy said:
Wait, no, that would be fucking stupid, because it would break usability in order to enforce broad tags. Narrow tags are useful! They make searching for specific things much easier. And if you want the broad concept, that's why we can imply narrow tags to broad tags.

An implication would be justified here. An alias would break usability for some idea of correctness (and I'm far from convinced that "if something falls under a larger category, only the larger category should be tagged" is a good idea of correctness).

Don't give me that slippery-slope strawman bullshit! That is not my arguement and you know it! I think anybody with half of a functional brain cell can already imply on their own that a human with plantigrade feet has human feet! As I pointed out above, they also have human ears, and noses, and jaws, etcetera!
Doesn't mean we separate tags to differentiate the style, this is already done because their species is already identified as humans! The only necessary exception would be if the subject indeed has mutated or abnormal features, such as cat ears (which in and of itself has already been identified), and then it'd be worth pointing out!

Over a year ago when I thought about posting this up, I didn't figure it was so provocative. It's a simple idea: "any competent user would assume that a regularly-depicted human being has human feet, which are plantigrade, so it's pointless to have both tags. Maybe, with the species distinction, compacting the two tags will remove an unnecessary two-word tag. It'd probably also educate a lot of budding foot fetishists exactly what style(s) they're lusting after, because I was awful happy when I learned the word 'plantigrade'. Maybe they'll be the same way."
Naïve me, I never imagined the idea of convenience over a single word would be met with such vitriol, but who am I to be surprised by that on the internet? I've long since given up on the idea of getting this pushed through, it's irrelevent compared to far more important issues both for me and the site itself, but it's definitely revealed to me that a desire to rid this site of mild redundancy is controversial by its very nature, which says more about me and everyone else in this topic than any single arguement/provocation made over this. Who'd have figured I'd have several people I've never met that I know nothing about (and vice versa) flocking here to insult me over my short-lived wish to improve the community in an admittedly nebulous way?
Oh well. I will use the plantigrade tag as necessary (which shouldn't be too often anyway) and let others cling to the human_feet tag. Doesn't matter, right? It's the internet and I was bored enough to come back here where I have nothing but enemies by very virtue of my presence.

And since I know someone can't resist: inb4twoyearslater.jpg

Lennox said:
At the risk of "necro'ing"

uh

Lennox said:
At the risk of "necro'ing", are you implying that we should also have tags like human ears, human nose, human teeth, etc because humans who also have facial features differ from other species? I figured the only implication of "human feet" specifically would apply to, y'know, humans. They're plantigrade either way. Speaking of which, those are not human feet. Those are digitgrade, which has already been tagged on that picture.

Don't give me that slippery-slope strawman bullshit! That is not my arguement and you know it! I think anybody with half of a functional brain cell can already imply on their own that a human with plantigrade feet has human feet! As I pointed out above, they also have human ears, and noses, and jaws, etcetera!
Doesn't mean we separate tags to differentiate the style, this is already done because their species is already identified as humans! The only necessary exception would be if the subject indeed has mutated or abnormal features, such as cat ears (which in and of itself has already been identified), and then it'd be worth pointing out!

Over a year ago when I thought about posting this up, I didn't figure it was so provocative. It's a simple idea: "any competent user would assume that a regularly-depicted human being has human feet, which are plantigrade, so it's pointless to have both tags. Maybe, with the species distinction, compacting the two tags will remove an unnecessary two-word tag. It'd probably also educate a lot of budding foot fetishists exactly what style(s) they're lusting after, because I was awful happy when I learned the word 'plantigrade'. Maybe they'll be the same way."
Naïve me, I never imagined the idea of convenience over a single word would be met with such vitriol, but who am I to be surprised by that on the internet? I've long since given up on the idea of getting this pushed through, it's irrelevent compared to far more important issues both for me and the site itself, but it's definitely revealed to me that a desire to rid this site of mild redundancy is controversial by its very nature, which says more about me and everyone else in this topic than any single arguement/provocation made over this. Who'd have figured I'd have several people I've never met that I know nothing about (and vice versa) flocking here to insult me over my short-lived wish to improve the community in an admittedly nebulous way?
Oh well. I will use the plantigrade tag as necessary (which shouldn't be too often anyway) and let others cling to the human_feet tag. Doesn't matter, right? It's the internet and I was bored enough to come back here where I have nothing but enemies by very virtue of my presence.

And since I know someone can't resist: inb4twoyearslater.jpg

post #443869

TL;DR How dare I use logic to try and make this site a better place. What an asshole am I. Please, more strawman to show how terrible a person I really am for caring.

It's not your caring that is making users respond this way. You necro'd a thread (not good) in order to re-hash an idea that was not well received (not good), and your argument was written in Oxford sentence structure, which is great on a thesis or other scholastic work, but frowned on in the internet. In addition to that, furries have a tendency to become intimidated at walls of text.

Husky, an admin, should have made a more constructive post, but he is still relatively new and still figuring out how important his presence is.

You're quoting arguments made a year ago by users that may or may not even still be on the site. It's like your girlfriend ruining dinner one random evening because you forgot what day her birthday was eight months ago.

In a nutshell, your alias will not work because it is not common for users to search for "plantigrade" when they want to look for human feet. As tags are designed to be functional, this wouldn't get approved.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
Reasonable explanation...this wouldn't get approved.

Yes, that's fair... I apologize. I suppose it really never mattered as long as people get what they like. Lock and burn this thread Angel, it's done.

TheDevilTheyKnow said:
Yes, that's fair... I apologize. I suppose it really never mattered as long as people get what they like. Lock and burn this thread Angel, it's done.

Boom