So the wiki description says, "Images or animations where a character is not wearing any footwear, including ferals."

But should ferals really be considered "barefoot" when they do not even naturally wear clothes to begin with? It's kind of obscure to have ferals wear footwear as they are complete "animals" with maybe anthropomorphized emotions/thinking. Plus ferals don't technically have "hands" as even their front paws are considered feet. On the other hand, anthros are based off humans/sapient creatures and are expected to have some form of clothing. Normally a character being expressed as barefoot is realized when they have pants/shirt but no shoes

anthro example:
{post #3281601}

feral example:
{post #3275088}

perhaps it would be better to avoid tagging ferals with visible hindpaws as "barefoot" and tag them as "hindpaw" or "paws" instead? just a thought

Personally no, it is in my opinion that it should be treated the same for nude and all_fours.

If a feral character is normally without clothes or walks on all four feet/quadruped, they do not need to be tagged with nude or all_fours since it breaks the purpose of said tags and oversaturates them with irrelevant posts.
Just like barefoot since they do not typically wear any footwear (with obvious exceptions such as horseshoe, but that is not considered to be footwear).

thegreatwolfgang said:
Personally no, it is in my opinion that it should be treated the same for nude and all_fours.

If a feral character is normally without clothes or walks on all four feet/quadruped, they do not need to be tagged with nude or all_fours since it breaks the purpose of said tags and oversaturates them with irrelevant posts.
Just like barefoot since they do not typically wear any footwear (with obvious exceptions such as horseshoe, but that is not considered to be footwear).

I guess so. Tagging ferals with nude seems obscure.

As for hooves, Unless as equestrian anthro design has some form of hindpaws, I tag them with hooves (which oh course would not be considered barefoot just like how some creatures like crabs can have jabbing legs or octopus tentacles)

Whenever you see a suspicious-looking wiki like this, it's always a good idea to check the history.

In this case, it appears the "including ferals" clause was unilaterally added to the page by user Sins and Virtues in February 2021. Searching "barefoot" on the forum did not turn up any contemporary discussion, unlike when we had a similar argument over the nude wiki page stating it applied to ferals.

The nice thing about a wiki is that if you see an edit that looks wrong, you have just as much power to fix it as the person who put it there in the first place. If they want to have an argument over the definition of a commonly-used tag, they can come to the correct place instead of trying to impose their will by stealth. As such, I have now reverted the change. If community consensus decrees it, someone could also add a clause in there explicitly stating that it should not apply to ferals.