Normally, I would consider all the limbs of ferals to be "legs/feet", but increasingly I've seen ferals doing "arm/hand" things with their feet and it confuses me as to which tag I should use.

For the sake of discussion, I will mainly be using the forelimbs of feral characters as examples.
(I know there's a tiny section on the feral wiki that mentions the use "hand" for the forelimbs but it creates confusion when considering "toes".)

Also, for the laughs.

I'd count the forelimbs as analogous to arms, the attached ends as analogous to hands, and those attached digits analogous to fingers. So, I'd go with arm_*, hand_*, and finger_*, primarily to reduce confusion. Now, when it comes to taurs, it might start getting a bit sticky, but the forelimbs of the feral part would still be analogous to an extra pair of arms, usually.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Normally, I would consider all the limbs of ferals to be "legs/feet", but increasingly I've seen ferals doing "arm/hand" things with their feet and it confuses me as to which tag I should use.

I generally consider forelimbs on ferals to be arms/hands, and hindlimbs to be legs/feet. Considering a number of species can be depicted on all fours and upright, and semi-anthro further blurs the distinction, and it's useful to distinguish between forelimbs and hindlimbs on quadrupeds, I just stick with forelimbs=arms and hindlimbs=feet.

thegreatwolfgang said:
1) If a second character were to grab their forelimbs, would it be leg_grab or arm_grab?

arm_grab.

thegreatwolfgang said:
2) Arms_tied or legs_tied?

Arms_tied

thegreatwolfgang said:
3) Can hand_on_face be tagged?

Yes.

thegreatwolfgang said:
post #632248 post #1641491 post #176542
4) Handjob or footjob?

Handjob, footjob, and handjob. Addison's talons are her hindlimbs/feet, and her wings are her forelimbs.

thegreatwolfgang said:
5) Hands_behind_back? (Third pic don't even have hands)

Arms_behind_back at least.

thegreatwolfgang said:
post #2305014
6) It can be hand_on_penis and foot_lick (for the forelimbs) at the same time?

hand_on_penis and hand_lick (or finger_lick).

thegreatwolfgang said:
post #1652694
6) If she were to lick her digits, is it finger_lick or toe_lick?

toe_lick, since as mentioned above, for a bird their talons are their hindlimbs/legs/feet. Same as wyverns.

thegreatwolfgang said:
8) Hand_holding or foot_grab?

Hand_holding.

thegreatwolfgang said:
9) If they are considered "hands", do you count the digits as fingers or toes (i.e. 4_fingers vs 4_toes)?

Fingers for forelimbs/hands, and toes for hindlimbs/feet.

watsit said:
I generally consider forelimbs on ferals to be arms/hands, and hindlimbs to be legs/feet. Considering a number of species can be depicted on all fours and upright, and semi-anthro further blurs the distinction, and it's useful to distinguish between forelimbs and hindlimbs on quadrupeds, I just stick with forelimbs=arms and hindlimbs=feet.

Although over the years I have mostly begun to tag the forelimbs as being the "arms" and the hindlimbs as being the "legs", I don't always tag them as such and would look to it on a case-to-case basis.
I would always tag the front digits as being toes/feet unless they show exceptional dexterity akin to that of a hand (e.g., grasping objects or pointing at things) and depending on whether or not they can be seen as a *_grab or foot_on_*.
Sometimes, for "true" quadrupeds, I would tag all limbs as being "legs" if they don't show the ability to manipulate them around like an arm/hand.

For example, it would seem odd to have post #2384195 be tagged as raised_arm/one_arm_up while having post #3171453 be tagged as raised_leg/one_leg_up.
This becomes especially difficult when the character has more than 4 limbs, such as taurs or >4 multi-legged animals (e.g., arachnid).
post #3226617 post #2765327 post #501984 post #959433

thegreatwolfgang said:
I would always tag the front digits as being toes/feet unless they show exceptional dexterity akin to that of a hand (e.g., grasping objects or pointing at things) and depending on whether or not they can be seen as a *_grab or foot_on_*.
Sometimes, for "true" quadrupeds, I would tag all limbs as being "legs" if they don't show the ability to manipulate them around like an arm/hand.

That runs into issues with prehensile_feet (which is specifically the ability of feet to grasp and manipulate objects like hands) and winged_arms (where a characters arms/hands are partially or wholly replaced by wings, which reduces their dexterity). Semi-anthro characters often have a form that can work as a quadruped or biped, with hands that aren't able to grasp things like human hands, but saying these palicos:
post #3251637 post #3149878 post #3149090
don't have hands/fingers would be weird. Seems like it'd just come down to whether there's an opposable thumb on their forelimb, which is not always easy to tell.

thegreatwolfgang said:
For example, it would seem odd to have post #2384195 be tagged as raised_arm/one_arm_up while having post #3171453 be tagged as raised_leg/one_leg_up.

Wouldn't it make sense to be able to distinguish between the two, though? The first one having one of their forelimbs raised, and the second having one of their hindlimbs raised, are different poses. Since forelimb and hindlimb aren't valid tags, and we already have tags, related tags, and implications set up for arms/legs, it makes the most sense to equate forelimbs with arms, and hindlimbs with legs, regardless of being quadruped or biped.

thegreatwolfgang said:
This becomes especially difficult when the character has more than 4 limbs, such as taurs or >4 multi-legged animals (e.g., arachnid).
post #3226617 post #2765327 post #501984 post #959433

Yes, unusual anatomy like that does complicate things either way you look at it. Even by your own standard, that first one especially has all four bottom limbs (front and back) as prehensile, meaning they show "exceptional dexterity akin to that of a hand (e.g., grasping objects or pointing at things)", and the bottom forelimbs have an arm-like structure, so would count as hands, yet the top limbs have quite human-like arms and hands too. Pinky Pie's limbs are also so ill-defined that, even if she were a biped, it'd be impossible to tell whether those are arms/hands or legs/feet.

watsit said:
That runs into issues with prehensile_feet (which is specifically the ability of feet to grasp and manipulate objects like hands) and winged_arms (where a characters arms/hands are partially or wholly replaced by wings, which reduces their dexterity). Semi-anthro characters often have a form that can work as a quadruped or biped, with hands that aren't able to grasp things like human hands, but saying these palicos:
post #3251637 post #3149878 post #3149090
don't have hands/fingers would be weird. Seems like it'd just come down to whether there's an opposable thumb on their forelimb, which is not always easy to tell.

Huh, never thought of prehensile_feet but that may work on some of the issues I faced before.

For winged_arms, I do believe they still have hands that they can use, as opposed to realistic_wings which make it impossible to grasp objects (barring some exceptional examples).

For semi-anthro characters, I would still tag them as having 2 arms/hands and 2 legs/feet as they are seen as biped and don't always walk on all_fours. As compared to quadrupeds, which almost exclusively walks on all their feet (as opposed to hands).

Wouldn't it make sense to be able to distinguish between the two, though? The first one having one of their forelimbs raised, and the second having one of their hindlimbs raised, are different poses. Since forelimb and hindlimb aren't valid tags, and we already have tags, related tags, and implications set up for arms/legs, it makes the most sense to equate forelimbs with arms, and hindlimbs with legs, regardless of being quadruped or biped.

I do actually tag them with arms/legs (for colours mostly), but not with every action such as hand_on_chest when the quadruped is stepping with its front hoof on someone.
It also somewhat goes in conflict with the definition of quadruped which sees characters as having 4 legs, rather than 2 arms and 2 legs as to how we are tagging it.

Yes, unusual anatomy like that does complicate things either way you look at it. Even by your own standard, that first one especially has all four bottom limbs (front and back) as prehensile, meaning they show "exceptional dexterity akin to that of a hand (e.g., grasping objects or pointing at things)", and the bottom forelimbs have an arm-like structure, so would count as hands, yet the top limbs have quite human-like arms and hands too. Pinky Pie's limbs are also so ill-defined that, even if she were a biped, it'd be impossible to tell whether those are arms/hands or legs/feet.

Yeah, part of me wants something like hoof_on_butt or appendage_on_* to be brought back since not all instances are showing "hands" per se. Even more complicated is when their feet also look/act like hands, so something in the middle ground for ambiguity might work.

thegreatwolfgang said:
For winged_arms, I do believe they still have hands that they can use

Sometimes. It can range from full wings, to arms with feathers, to arm-like wings, and not very dexterous hands. The first and last I wouldn't say are designed to "grasp and manipulate objects like hands" (even if they may be able to do simple manipulation, it's not nearly as much as human hands), and arm-like wings may or may not depending on what they're doing in a given picture. post #2890417 doesn't look very dexterous, while post #3233227 does. And there's images like post #3264088 or post #3172947 where it's completely unknown what their wing-hands are capable of.

thegreatwolfgang said:
For semi-anthro characters, I would still tag them as having 2 arms/hands and 2 legs/feet as they are seen as biped and don't always walk on all_fours. As compared to quadrupeds, which almost exclusively walks on all their feet (as opposed to hands).

But then you have cases like bears and raccoons, which are normally quadruped, but can stand up and act with limited bipedal motion while using their forelimbs like hands to grab things.

thegreatwolfgang said:
I do actually tag them with arms/legs (for colours mostly), but not with every action such as hand_on_chest when the quadruped is stepping with its front hoof on someone.

I still think it would make sense then, since there's a difference between a character being stepped on by a quadruped's forelimb or hindlimb. Calling post #3261207 a footjob or saying post #3260937 is spread_legs seems wrong to me.

watsit said:
Sometimes. It can range from full wings, to arms with feathers, to arm-like wings, and not very dexterous hands.

I think you have mistaken the definition of winged_arms, i.e., "they have fully fledged opposable hands and arms with wingspan."
The first post would be realistic_wings, second post would be winged_arms, third post would be feather_hands, and the forth post would be winged_arms again.

In the case of winged_arms and feather_hands, I'm not sure if we would even be tagging with "hand" tags or "wing" tags, or whether opposable "feathers" can be considered "fingers".

But then you have cases like bears and raccoons, which are normally quadruped, but can stand up and act with limited bipedal motion while using their forelimbs like hands to grab things.

I think bears and raccoons can be seen as biped in certain instances, and can be tagged with having hands/fingers. However, for animals who don't usually use their feet as hands (like horses or dogs), I would tag them as quadruped and only having arms + legs + feet, but not hands.

I still think it would make sense then, since there's a difference between a character being stepped on by a quadruped's forelimb or hindlimb. Calling post #3261207 a footjob or saying post #3260937 is spread_legs seems wrong to me.

Yeah, I would tag those two as having arms as well. However, for the first post I would tag as having arms + hands (i.e., penis_grab + 3_fingers) while the second post I would tag as arms + feet (i.e., spread_arms + 3_toes + toe_claws).

But that is just how I tag though, I wonder how others do it.

I almost feel like a fool, but I always consider front=hands/fingers/arm(and legs depending on context), back=feet/toes/legs, and both = claws when thinking in terms of anatomy. Watsit had many of the same reasons for this. It seems consistent and is less annoying then "webbed_front_leg" or "front_claws/fore_claws" or something. XD There are of course 'actual feral' paws but like mentioned above, that can be a gray area. If it wasn't for the fact that many, many ferals have finger/toe-paws in front... and aren't actually anthro, this would be a moot point.

So if they have 3 toes, and 3 claws on their back paws, I guess tag them both?

:edit: Actually read some more replies. Well yes, it doesn't make sense to use 'hands' if it's not an actually opposable-thumbs humanoid hand.

This discussion will be a great reference for future editors. :)

alphamule said:
Well yes, it doesn't make sense to use 'hands' if it's not an actually opposable-thumbs humanoid hand.

I say it does. These are drawings we're dealing with, characters don't need opposable thumbs to use forelimbs as hands even when no digits are present. It's also useful to differentiate forelimbs with claws (finger_claws) and hindlimbs with claws (toe_claws), as well as to indicate when both are present (finger_claws and toe_claws). Calling these all "toe_claws" does a disservice to the tagging system and users that care about the difference. At the same time, saying fingers are on feet to make that distinction for claws without going the whole way truly makes no sense (fingers are connected to hands, not feet, which are connected to arms, not legs). And it's also useful to distinguish when their hindpaw is raised (raised_leg) or their forepaw is raised (raised_arm). Calling these all "raised_leg" does a similar disservice to the tagging system and users that are interested in the difference.

Opposable thumbs isn't a good metric either, because it can be ambiguous if a character has opposable thumbs due to the angle or art style, or the in-between depictions you sometimes get with transformations. Prehensile feet also throw a kink into the idea as they can give thumb-like opposable digits to hindlimbs.

FWIW, I wouldn't be strongly opposed to using forepaw/hindpaw (in place of hand and foot) and forelimb/hindlimb (in place of arm and leg) for quadruped. But that too can get ambiguous at times (are these forepaws or hands ? forelimbs or arms ? to say nothing of the people that'll use "paws" even for hands, because furries), and we already have implications and aliases in place for hand/foot/arm/leg tags. So it makes more sense to just go with what we have.

Yeah, I too think having something like forepaw/hindpaw to differentiate between actual "hands" and anything else that don't look like hands, but that also raises the issue of people using it to tag general "paws".
The current implications in place do suggest that there was an attempt at standardising everything down to hand and feet (such as aliases for hoof_on_butt -> hand_on_butt, paw_fetish -> foot_fetish), but at the same time also have exceptions for tags (such as understandably separating raised_hoof/raised_paw from raised_hand/raised_foot).

The major problem I feel is the lack of a proper definition for hands, feet, paws, etc. and their subtags. Some of which may also have definitions that overlap with one another (e.g., seeing hooves & paws as by default being a type of feet).

watsit said:
I say it does. These are drawings we're dealing with, characters don't need opposable thumbs to use forelimbs as hands even when no digits are present. It's also useful to differentiate forelimbs with claws (finger_claws) and hindlimbs with claws (toe_claws), as well as to indicate when both are present (finger_claws and toe_claws). Calling these all "toe_claws" does a disservice to the tagging system and users that care about the difference. At the same time, saying fingers are on feet to make that distinction for claws without going the whole way truly makes no sense (fingers are connected to hands, not feet, which are connected to arms, not legs). And it's also useful to distinguish when their hindpaw is raised (raised_leg) or their forepaw is raised (raised_arm). Calling these all "raised_leg" does a similar disservice to the tagging system and users that are interested in the difference.

Opposable thumbs isn't a good metric either, because it can be ambiguous if a character has opposable thumbs due to the angle or art style, or the in-between depictions you sometimes get with transformations. Prehensile feet also throw a kink into the idea as they can give thumb-like opposable digits to hindlimbs.

FWIW, I wouldn't be strongly opposed to using forepaw/hindpaw (in place of hand and foot) and forelimb/hindlimb (in place of arm and leg) for quadruped. But that too can get ambiguous at times (are these forepaws or hands ? forelimbs or arms ? to say nothing of the people that'll use "paws" even for hands, because furries), and we already have implications and aliases in place for hand/foot/arm/leg tags. So it makes more sense to just go with what we have.

:comes back a few days later to read replies:
I'm more confused then when I first read this thread, LOL.

Yeah, that opposable thumbs thing makes sense.

The gray areas on the definitions are part of the beauty and ugliness of a broad family of tags. At least sex positions and view tags sort of make sense as families. The f/m/h/i-related tags are confusing for people who haven't internalized the TWYS reasoning, and the lore tags are pretty much at nightmare difficulty to backtag, simply due to size of backlog.