The tag implication #40251 humanoid_feet -> plantigrade has been approved.

Reason: One of the most obvious characteristics of human or humanoid feet are that they are plantigrade. Even if you had a foot based on a human foot that was digitigrade instead, it would look so different that it shouldn't be tagged as humanoid_feet at all.

EDIT: The tag implication humanoid_feet -> plantigrade (forum #312979) has been approved by @gattonero2001.

scaliespe said:
Reason: One of the most obvious characteristics of human or humanoid feet are that they are plantigrade. Even if you had a foot based on a human foot that was digitigrade instead, it would look so different that it shouldn't be tagged as humanoid_feet at all.

While I'm inclined to agree with you, I did once rise to the challenge of humans with digitigrade (and arguably, unguligrade) feet with these pictures from Man After Man:
post #264190 post #264191 post #264200
Weirdly, the first is tagged with humanoid_feet even though they're digitigrade.

clawstripe said:
While I'm inclined to agree with you, I did once rise to the challenge of humans with digitigrade (and arguably, unguligrade) feet with these pictures from Man After Man:
post #264190 post #264191 post #264200
Weirdly, the first is tagged with humanoid_feet even though they're digitigrade.

That is very interesting. The first post is also already tagged as plantigrade, despite the fact that it does not appear plantigrade at all. But that is a good example of what I mean when I say that a hypothetical non-plantigrade humanoid foot would look so far removed from an actual human foot that it probably should not be given humanoid_feet as a tag. A very distorted humanoid foot, maybe, but many actual animal feet can be described in the same way. I'd choose to tag all three with digitigrade only.

scaliespe said:
That is very interesting. The first post is also already tagged as plantigrade, despite the fact that it does not appear plantigrade at all. But that is a good example of what I mean when I say that a hypothetical non-plantigrade humanoid foot would look so far removed from an actual human foot that it probably should not be given humanoid_feet as a tag. A very distorted humanoid foot, maybe, but many actual animal feet can be described in the same way. I'd choose to tag all three with digitigrade only.

Rest assured that I wasn't the one who added either humanoid_feet or plantigrade. :p The point of those posts was to illustrate that bona fide human characters (and not humanoids) could come with digitigrade feet.

clawstripe said:
Rest assured that I wasn't the one who added either humanoid_feet or plantigrade. :p The point of those posts was to illustrate that bona fide human characters (and not humanoids) could come with digitigrade feet.

Fair enough. I'm glad you shared it, though. I love how absolutely bizarre that quadruped human is.

Just bumped into this, and feel bizzare how such a giant tag has no implication that more or less comes from how it's defined?

Yeah there's a difference from plantigrade paw feet and humanoid looking feet. Human feet have a different look to their toes unlike paws. And aren't linked to another. You could draw a human with weird digitigrade legs and still have human-like toes/feet on them (like shown above). Especially if the artist draws them as such.

The tag implication humanoid_feet -> plantigrade (forum #312979) has been approved by @gattonero2001.