Aliasing thigh → invalid_tag
Link to alias

Reason:

Plural thighs is invalid.

+1. We need this tag in the same level in which we need its plural.

+

-butt
-fingers
-toes
-feet
-wings
-heel
-waist
-breasts
-chin
-jaws/jaw
-pussy
-penis
...

Ruku said:
+

-butt
-fingers
-toes
-feet
-wings
-heel
-waist
-breasts
-chin
-jaws/jaw
-pussy
-penis
...

penis, pussy and breasts I find useful as defining characteristics of physical sex, and they allow broader classification on top of the sex tags.

Wings is probably useful because they are not body parts that occur on almost all characters.

The rest appear on almost all images that depict at least one character, so are noisy.

Off topic to this specific thread, feet is too broad, and foot_focus/foot_fetish adequately replace it. Despite both being under tagged individually.

I like the butt tag because it's usually only tagged on images that have a somewhat prominent butt.

KiraNoot said:
feet is too broad, and foot_focus/foot_fetish adequately replace it.

I really don't think so...feet are all too often cropped out of an image or covered by some type of footwear. Your own Avatar doesn't even feature them...they are cropped out. It should definitely be kept as a tag, as there are many great pictures of feet that don't necessarily focus on them enough to qualify for foot_focus/foot_fetish.

Ruku said:
+

-butt
-fingers
-toes
-feet
-wings
-heel
-waist
-breasts
-chin
-jaws/jaw
-pussy
-penis
...

Yay to alias
-fingers
-jaws/jaw
-toes
-feet
-chin
-waist

Nay to alias
-penis
-pussy
-breasts
-butt

TheHuskyK9 said:
Yay to alias
-fingers
-jaws/jaw
-toes
-feet
-chin
-waist

Nay to alias
-penis
-pussy
-breasts
-butt

would you mind specifying why butt shouldnt be invalidated as its usefulness is quite similar to the recently invalidated armpit and the present thighs tags?

It might be worth noting why thighs (plural) was invalidated. Could be relevant to further inquiries and arguments.

Fingers and toes are kind of useful when searching for the hand/feet types. Though it'd be more useful to tag humanoid_feet / humanoid_hands instead. And if fingers were to be invalidated, you could still search for *_fingers.

Jaw, chin, cheek, forehead, and waist need to go. And thighs.

Butt is helpful when searching for specific poses, since it's not always visible.

As for the tags that have already been invalidated: I kind of miss the old 'nostril slit' tag, because it was useful for searching for reptiles and such while excluding characters with more humanoid noses and mammalian snouts. Such as post #1237402, which is tagged as scalie because of the implications.

Siral_Exan said:
It might be worth noting why thighs (plural) was invalidated. Could be relevant to further inquiries and arguments.

useless as there is no reference to backtrack and the statement on the entry is ambiguous

Ruku said:
useless as there is no reference to backtrack and the statement on the entry is ambiguous

... if you know why various body parts are invalidated, you know what the statement means. Hence why I brought it up, it is relevant to this topic.

Siral_Exan said:
... if you know why various body parts are invalidated, you know what the statement means. Hence why I brought it up, it is relevant to this topic.

not everyone was here 3 or 6 years ago thou, you honestly expect new users to just immediately upon making an account here to know why from a statement that gives no true reason, theres not answer to be found from any of the wiki's of the defunct tags ether so were exsactly should users reading this thread get the information to know. It defeats the propose for this whole process of opening up discussion on a forum when only a select fuw admins and contributers that were here at the time are privy to the information.

if there is no reference for your reasoning so that everyone can know then there is no point in linking it, hence being irrelivant

Ruku said:
not everyone was here 3 or 6 years ago thou, you honestly expect new users to just immediately upon making an account here to know why from a statement that gives no true reason, theres not answer to be found from any of the wiki's of the defunct tags ether so were exsactly should users reading this thread get the information to know. It defeats the propose for this whole process of opening up discussion on a forum when only a select fuw admins and contributers that were here at the time are privy to the information.

if there is no reference for your reasoning so that everyone can know then there is no point in linking it, hence being irrelivant

Did I touch a nerve? I guess it's a good thing we have Genjar, Husky, and Kira here (I'm excluding Knotty until they respond to their thread), they'll know what I mean.

Siral_Exan said:
Did I touch a nerve? I guess it's a good thing we have Genjar, Husky, and Kira here (I'm excluding Knotty until they respond to their thread), they'll know what I mean.

No, I'm just stating that your comment and link is meaningless to anyone that wasn't here when e621 was restarted or in staff. What is said now is pointless as there is no way to reference that it was actually so at the time of the invalidation nor what was discused, opinions and positions do also change over time.

Ruku said:
No, I'm just stating that your comment and link is meaningless to anyone that wasn't here when e621 was restarted or in staff.

See the last section of e621:tagging_checklist.
Those tags are too generic to be useful. When something would have to be tagged for 90% of the content, it's better to make a tag for the 10% instead.

Ruku said:
No, I'm just stating that your comment and link is meaningless to anyone that wasn't here when e621 was restarted or in staff. What is said now is pointless as there is no way to reference that it was actually so at the time of the invalidation nor what was discused, opinions and positions do also change over time.

I don't think you get to speak for the effects of time, when you yourself tried playing an age card. If you continue to treat me like this, or take anything I've said out of context, then I will not bother with you.

You are annoying me, and your biggest contribution was asking why butt shouldn't be invalidated. Genjar indirectly responded to that, why don't you respond to them? Because I am not the person you get to vent out onto.

Ruku said:
would you mind specifying why butt shouldnt be invalidated as its usefulness is quite similar to the recently invalidated armpit and the present thighs tags?

Booty is a huge fetish. It's one of the main fetishes in porn, besides boobs and penis. Invalidating that is redundant.

What butt and breasts need is clarification in their wiki pages. I vaguely mentioned this at the end of my invalidation thread for armpits (forum #230842).

They should have always been tagged only if they were clearly visible or prominent even when clothed (big butts, big breasts). The difference between armpits and butts/breasts is that we can generally agree what part of the body defines each tag.

Why in the world would you particularly need to remove any of these tags?

While some body parts like "chin" probably don't need to be tagged, it's highly pertinent to tag breasts / butt / penis / etc. wherever those things are appreciably visible in the image (nude or otherwise), simply because those in particular are going to be searched for incredibly frequently.

Which do you expect viewers to search for?

• female solo breasts
• female solo breasts_are_visible_but_possibly_incidental_but_not_necessarily

... or whatever other roundabout tag you make that is just the breasts tag with a new, unintuitive name.

Removing the breasts tag would subsequently imply removing big_breasts / huge_breasts etc. and why would you do something completely dumb like that?

Tag what is in the image

TheHuskyK9 said:
Yay to alias
-fingers
-jaws/jaw
-toes
-feet
-chin
-waist

Nay to alias
-penis
-pussy
-breasts
-butt

This, pretty much.
First we'd have to go through fingers n feet to sort the applicable posts into the feet focus/hand focus tags, if we have any. Feet especially considering how seemingly common that fetish is.

TheHuskyK9 said:
Yay to alias
-fingers
-jaws/jaw
-toes
-feet
-chin
-waist

Nay to alias
-penis
-pussy
-breasts
-butt

I agree, except by 'toes' and 'feet':

In terms of body-parts attributed with a sexual character, foot isn't exactly included, however (as Peekaboo mentioned) it is a considerably popular fetish, and possibly this popularity is enough to justify maintaining the tag.¹

About 'toes'; it not only is strongly related to 'feet', but also seems to be less redundant than the other tags in the former list. Additionally, its invalidation already was discussed in threads like forum #213852 and the prevalent thought apparently was in favor of keeping it.

¹ I know that armpits are a commonly fetishized too, but armpit fetish (as far as I know) is less common that foot fetish, additionally, there is a great consensus about which areas should be considered part of foot, however the same cannot be said about armpit (hence tagging armpits would be less accurate).