The wiki for humanoid_feet says

A character with human-like feet, typically 4-5 toes and may or may not be hairless.

What are important attributes to preserve for humanoid_feet? The proportions, flatness, heel, ball of the feet, toe shape?

Should I think of humanoid_feet as a sub-category of plantigrade? Seperating pawpads and pawtoes from very human toes and featureless soles?

200 of 9000 humanoid_feet have pawpads.
post #301786 post #1584577 post #1347784 post #1361195

hoof toes
post #1583248

very long foot
post #132902

Big toe is short and closer to pawtoe
post #1358049 post #392083 post #1544586

very human but with heelpad, pawpads, and toepads.
post #508826 post #123961

How important is the 4-5 toe rule?
post #1507066

Seems overtagged. Like all humanoid_* tags, it should only be tagged if the part is almost fully human-like. Humanoid feet: plantigrade, toenails instead of claws, no pawpads. Can be hairy (think Hobbit feet), but probably not fully fur-covered.

I think that anything with claws or pawpads doesn't belong. Those should be tagged as plantigrade instead of more specific humanoid_feet. Otherwise there's no point in having those tags separate.

Mostly opinions, but in general I agree with Genjar: Should not have pawpads; not so much worried about the hairy/furry aspect since many posts will feature fur (even if it's just "painted on"); sole being a different color is also fine, even if it's darker; claws is not fine; having 4 toes might be fine, but having only 3 toes is a bit of a stretch.

Basically they have to look very similar to qualify as humanoid, otherwise they're just plantigrade.

Chessax said:
having 4 toes might be fine, but having only 3 toes is a bit of a stretch.

humanoid_feet 3_toes

Mairo said:
humanoid_feet 3_toes

Overtagged, and most by the same user.

Posts such as...
post #166138
...shouldn't belong in humanoid_feet.

While I tend to agree somewhat, I'm not sure how I feel about humanoid feet that just happen to have claws or colorations/vague paw pads while being almost entirely humanoid otherwise. Those I feel are sort of a teetering edge case as minus some minor features they'd be pretty much human-like

One thing that could possibly be a solution is to utilize the hybrid_* tag format with this, so possibly humanoid_feet hybrid_feet pawpads or humanoid_feet hybrid_feet claws could be a tag combo for feet that are almost human with incredibly minor non-human features added

I'm going to chip in here a bit, because I feel extremely negative towards humanoid feet.

There's quite a bit of variation here, obviously, but one thing that basically all these feet have in common is the heel. I've noticed that artists are more willing to do something different with the front of the foot, by giving them claws, or hooves, or putting pads, but the heel remains a humanoid heel.

Personally, most of the stuff linked in this thread is highly offputting and it seems useful to group it together in some way for blacklisting purposes. Given what I said above, a humanoid_heel tag might work but also sounds oddly specific. But even things like that Cynder image definitely have features of human feet, and it would be nice to have something to indicate that.

Clawdragons said:
I'm going to chip in here a bit, because I feel extremely negative towards humanoid feet.

There's quite a bit of variation here, obviously, but one thing that basically all these feet have in common is the heel. I've noticed that artists are more willing to do something different with the front of the foot, by giving them claws, or hooves, or putting pads, but the heel remains a humanoid heel.

Personally, most of the stuff linked in this thread is highly offputting and it seems useful to group it together in some way for blacklisting purposes. Given what I said above, a humanoid_heel tag might work but also sounds oddly specific. But even things like that Cynder image definitely have features of human feet, and it would be nice to have something to indicate that.

Plantigrade is probably the best tag you're looking for; it indicates walking on the "soles" of a foot like humans do. Honestly humanoid_feet I feel should imply plantigrade inherently but don't currently

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:
Plantigrade is probably the best tag you're looking for; it indicates walking on the "soles" of a foot like humans do. Honestly humanoid_feet I feel should imply plantigrade inherently but don't currently

Except that there are plenty of plantigrade feet that don't bother me. Bears, for instance, walk plantigrade, but their feet are pretty distinct from human feet.

Also worth mentioning that there are images which clearly have human characteristics to the feet, that aren't plantigrade.

Here's a couple examples:

post #519546 post #810880

These feet clearly have humanoid characteristics, but the characters probably would walk unguligrade. In both cases though, you can see what I mean about the human-like heel.

post #1547237

The bear's feet here are clearly plantigrade, but aren't human or humanoid.

Clawdragons said:
Except that there are plenty of plantigrade feet that don't bother me. Bears, for instance, walk plantigrade, but their feet are pretty distinct from human feet.

Also worth mentioning that there are images which clearly have human characteristics to the feet, that aren't plantigrade.

Here's a couple examples:

post #519546 post #810880

These feet clearly have humanoid characteristics, but the characters probably would walk unguligrade. In both cases though, you can see what I mean about the human-like heel.

post #1547237

The bear's feet here are clearly plantigrade, but aren't human or humanoid.

What might be best in this case is blacklisting humanoid_feet plantigrade AND/OR humanoid_feet sole or something? In my case, the hybrid feet tag I suggested may be beneficial to you in filtering out the more humanoid feet

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:
While I tend to agree somewhat, I'm not sure how I feel about humanoid feet that just happen to have claws or colorations/vague paw pads while being almost entirely humanoid otherwise. Those I feel are sort of a teetering edge case as minus some minor features they'd be pretty much human-like

One thing that could possibly be a solution is to utilize the hybrid_* tag format with this, so possibly humanoid_feet hybrid_feet pawpads or humanoid_feet hybrid_feet claws could be a tag combo for feet that are almost human with incredibly minor non-human features added

I also think the important features of the foot is the shape of the sole and the heel. I could imagine a person with strange toes but a strange heel or sole shape feels inhuman. Toes are so minor in the shape and function of feet.

Would we need hybrid_feet if we tagged claws and pawtoes?

Clawdragons said:
Except that there are plenty of plantigrade feet that don't bother me. Bears, for instance, walk plantigrade, but their feet are pretty distinct from human feet.

Also worth mentioning that there are images which clearly have human characteristics to the feet, that aren't plantigrade.

Here's a couple examples:

post #519546 post #810880

These feet clearly have humanoid characteristics, but the characters probably would walk unguligrade. In both cases though, you can see what I mean about the human-like heel.

post #1547237

The bear's feet here are clearly plantigrade, but aren't human or humanoid.

It felt strange at first but I'm for humanoid_heel. Heels stick out and their shape feels bulky and inelegant. Where that zebra would have an ankle or joint it has a fat heel.

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:
What might be best in this case is blacklisting humanoid_feet plantigrade AND/OR humanoid_feet sole or something? In my case, the hybrid feet tag I suggested may be beneficial to you in filtering out the more humanoid feet

I'm not really looking for advice for my own blacklist. The searches that I tend to do typically don't typically result in too many images which have this issue. Your proposed solution would have way too many false positives than it's worth. I'm more discussing possible issues and solutions related to the question at hand.

Clawdragons said:
I'm not really looking for advice for my own blacklist. The searches that I tend to do typically don't typically result in too many images which have this issue. Your proposed solution would have way too many false positives than it's worth. I'm more discussing possible issues and solutions related to the question at hand.

Fair enough!

Really I'm just brainstorming and thinking of ideas from various angles to see if things will work. So if my proposition is seen as way too much work for something whose risks are much higher than its benefits, it can be ignored, hahaha.

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:
Fair enough!

Really I'm just brainstorming and thinking of ideas from various angles to see if things will work. So if my proposition is seen as way too much work for something whose risks are much higher than its benefits, it can be ignored, hahaha.

Not a problem. I do appreciate that you're always trying to help out. My own post, in retrospect, could be seen as coming off a bit short / annoyed / something or other, and that wasn't my intent. Sorry about that.

This is one of many tags where its meaning is informally assumed by taggers and its own wiki. In reality, no one tagging these things follows the same criteria. Thus, these tags are literally TWYS (i.e., subjective) because the wikis are not descriptive enough.

I still have no idea what the fuck paws are. How do I know if the anthrofied foot I'm looking at is paw-like enough to get that tag? I mentioned this in detail about two years ago and again more recently, but no one gave a shit either time.

Obvious examples are not a problem. The problem is defining tag boundaries.

abadbird said:
This is one of many tags where its meaning is informally assumed by taggers and its own wiki. In reality, no one tagging these things follows the same criteria. Thus, these tags are literally TWYS (i.e., subjective) because the wikis are not descriptive enough.

I still have no idea what the fuck paws are. How do I know if the anthrofied foot I'm looking at is paw-like enough to get that tag? I mentioned this in detail about two years ago and again more recently, but no one gave a shit either time.

Obvious examples are not a problem. The problem is defining tag boundaries.

You've got a valid point honestly; often with furry characters I've seen human-ish (or very humanoid-like) feet just with paws glued onto it and not proper, "true" paws. Would that count as paw enough?

We definitely need some better, more solid criteria for paws, foot types, walking stature types, etc etc

Even with 4 toes, claw, and paw pads, post #3735040 still looks very humanoid to me, post #3760279 is much better, humanoid_heel does make a huge difference in those cases. Will be nice to have it for a better filter.