The bulk update request #1627 is active.

remove alias unguligrade (6647) -> mammal (3149730)

Reason: Unguligrade is the way a character's feet are formed, and fits into the set well:

• Plantigrade - a character stands on heel, ball and toes
• digitigrade - a character stands on ball and toes, not heel
• unguligrade - a character stands on a single hoof

Feet shapes aren't always tagged, so a simple exclusion of cervidae -plantigrade -digitigrade wouldn't really help users find such images, and they may be interested in cases of other species that don't normally have hooves having them.

See also:
De-alias unguligrade - A three year old discussion on de-aliasing it.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1627 (forum #321479) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

+1 to the first part and the first half of the second part. I'm not sure having unguligrade_anthro be a valid tag that implies others is a good idea, though. No other <feet_type>_<form> tags seem to exist, and it might confuse people into thinking tags like unguligrade_pony or unguligrade_horse are valid if unguligrade_anthro and unguligrade_feral are.

Aliasing unguligrade to mammal makes no sense.
The question is whether there is a significant difference between digitigrade and unguligrade. After all, hooves are simply modified toes.

The unguligrade tag could be replaced with digitigrade + hooves.

watsit said:
+1 to the first part and the first half of the second part. I'm not sure having unguligrade_anthro be a valid tag that implies others is a good idea, though. No other <feet_type>_<form> tags seem to exist, and it might confuse people into thinking tags like unguligrade_pony or unguligrade_horse are valid if unguligrade_anthro and unguligrade_feral are.

I'm a bit curious about those sorts of terms being aliased to plantigrade but not digitigrade, a plantigrade taur stands out even more than a digitigrade anthro.

bitwolfy said:
Aliasing unguligrade to mammal makes no sense.
The question is whether there is a significant difference between digitigrade and unguligrade. After all, hooves are simply modified toes.

The unguligrade tag could be replaced with digitigrade + hooves.

post #3031421
Sometimes the hooves are full digiti/plantigradal toes, rather than standing on their own.

bitwolfy said:
The question is whether there is a significant difference between digitigrade and unguligrade. After all, hooves are simply modified toes.

The unguligrade tag could be replaced with digitigrade + hooves.

There difference in structure between a hoof and a foot are far more dramatic than the differences between plantigrade and digitigrade feet, to the point where there's about as much difference as a foot and a fin, or a hand and a wing. Hooves are modified toenails, the toes are forming the "shin". It seems a fair tag, although we do technically run into the issue of camelids with their soft pads, and cetaceans with their lack of legs in considering what gets the distinction.

bitwolfy said:
Aliasing unguligrade to mammal makes no sense.
The question is whether there is a significant difference between digitigrade and unguligrade. After all, hooves are simply modified toes.

The unguligrade tag could be replaced with digitigrade + hooves .

There is a significant difference, as much as there is between digitigrade and plantigrade. Unguligrades are toe walkers. Think like ballet dancers except they're designed to do this all the time. Digitigrades walk on the toes and balls of the feet, a stance between that of plantigrade and unguligrade. Think like someone walking on tiptoes all the time. Hooves are simply a form of finger- and toe-nails.

Having hooves is not necessarily synonymous with unguligrade. It's just that most of the unguligrades we're used to also happen to have hooves of some sort. Though actually afrotheres instead of hoofers, elephants have semi-digitigrade feet, partway between unguligrade and digitigrade, though the huge pad under the feet rather hides it. Various now-extinct early hoofed mammals (eg. Mesohippus and Hyracotherum) were unguligrade but had pads on their feet as they hadn't developed hooves yet. I did take a cursory look for non-mammalian unguligrade animals, but even the sauropod dinosaurs were standard dino-avian digitigrade although their front limbs stood on the tips of their fingers as an unguligrade's does.
_____________________________

furrin_gok said:
Reason: Unguligrade is the way a character's feet are formed, and fits into the set well:

• Plantigrade - a character stands on heel and toes
• digitigrade - a character stands on toes, not heel
• unguligrade - a character stands on a single hoof

Although I agree with your argument, the details here aren't entirely accurate. As I said above, digitigrade means the character is walking on toes and the ball of the foot (the footpaw). Unguligrade animals are walking only on their toes, but those toes needn't be encased in hooves (though they usually are in this era of evolutionary time). Also, only equids stand on one toe. All other ungulates walk on two or more toes.

How in the world did unguligrade get aliased to mammal?? This doesn't make much sense, and it's a very useful tag, just like plantigrade and digitigrade.

I think hoof tags could use some rethinking, here's my take: topic #34546

waydence said:
How in the world did unguligrade get aliased to mammal??

It's a bit of a mess to dig up because the original unguligrade -> hooves alias it came from is gone. Based on that one they were gonna alias ungulate -> hooves but went with ungulate -> mammal instead, and moved unguligrade to match because the hooves themselves aren't always in frame.

The bulk update request #1627 (forum #321479) has been approved by @bitWolfy.