The bulk update request #2432 is active.

create alias dipstick_feet (0) -> socks_(marking) (43846)
create alias dipstick_hands (0) -> gloves_(marking) (54860)

Reason: paw_markings should be aliased to... something probably...
dipstick_ tail has the same implication structure, and it seems to me that 'paws' are slightly ambiguious, so it should be aliased to 'hand', aka 'dipstick paws' to 'dipstick hands'.

update: changed the tags being aliased to. I probably should make a new BUR, but its so small I don't think it matters.

EDIT: The bulk update request #2432 (forum #333691) has been approved by @slyroon.

dipstick_paws can refer to either hands or feet, as paws can refer to either or both hands (forepaws) or feet (hindpaws).

Also, dipstick_feet should probably be aliased to socks_(marking) since it refers to the same thing. And dipstick_hands should be aliased to gloves_(marking). There's also dipstick_limbs which can refer to either.

kemonophonic said:
gloves_(marking)
socks_(marking)

that... would be better actually... I should fix that.

Bumping this because I think the aliases requested in this BUR would still be useful.

Also, as Watsit mentioned, there's also dipstick_limbs, which as far as I can tell is primarily an umbrella term that covers both socks and glove markings. So maybe these implication lines should be added too:

create implication socks_(marking) -> dipstick_limbs
create implication gloves_(marking) -> dipstick_limbs

Characters can also have other kinds of limbs, in addition to legs or arms (and also cases where it's ambiguous what kind of limbs they have). So in many situations, dipstick_tentacles and dipstick_wings should also be considered dipstick_limbs. However, I wouldn't add implications for those, because that's not always true: tentacles and wings can also appear in ways that don't function as limbs (e.g. tentacle_hair, or Namor's little mini ankle wings).

Relatedly, I found topic #36081, which was a rejected BUR that has some discussion about how the related tags toeless_(marking)/fingerless_(marking) might be different from dipstick_toes/dipstick_fingers.

The bulk update request #2432 (forum #333691) has been approved by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #9483 is pending approval.

remove alias dipstick_feet (0) -> socks_(marking) (43846)
remove alias dipstick_hands (0) -> gloves_(marking) (54860)

Reason: post #5119927 post #5115847

While I understand the intention behind the original BUR, there are cases where the dipstick marking is so slight that it doesn't even feel like a glove or sock (especially dipstick paws). At worst I'd say have it as an implication.

furrin_gok said:
The bulk update request #9483 is pending approval.

remove alias dipstick_feet (0) -> socks_(marking) (43846)
remove alias dipstick_hands (0) -> gloves_(marking) (54860)

Reason: post #5119927 post #5115847

While I understand the intention behind the original BUR, there are cases where the dipstick marking is so slight that it doesn't even feel like a glove or sock (especially dipstick paws). At worst I'd say have it as an implication.

the one on the left seems closer to toeless_(marking). I'd still say the one on the right is socks and gloves.

maybe these should be disambiguated, though. the tags could mean anything from gloves/socks to <digit>less or dipstick<digits>.

Oh, that reminds me. I noticed recently that some people have been using the tags dipstick fingers and dipstick toes instead, and I'm curious how you feel about those terms. Personally I think saying "fingerless" and "toeless" and leaving us to infer that it's a shortening of "fingerless gloves" and "toeless socks" is iffy, especially since that also implies, wrongly, that the hand/foot is a different color from the arm/leg.

On the other hand, the way we're using "dipstick" now is when the body part is a different color on the tip than the rest of it. Like, I don't know if you're supposed to use "dipstick ears" for ears (e.g. foxes) that are entirely black/brown when the body is orange, but I've been avoiding doing that. It almost seems like "dipstick hands/feet" would actually be the term for when the end of the hand/foot is a different color from the rest, closer to what "fingerless/toeless" is being used for now, as furrin_gok said.

...Maybe this complication is exactly why we don't use dipstick for hands and feet at all.

errorist said:
Oh, that reminds me. I noticed recently that some people have been using the tags dipstick fingers and dipstick toes instead, and I'm curious how you feel about those terms. Personally I think saying "fingerless" and "toeless" and leaving us to infer that it's a shortening of "fingerless gloves" and "toeless socks" is iffy, especially since that also implies, wrongly, that the hand/foot is a different color from the arm/leg.

On the other hand, the way we're using "dipstick" now is when the body part is a different color on the tip than the rest of it. Like, I don't know if you're supposed to use "dipstick ears" for ears (e.g. foxes) that are entirely black/brown when the body is orange, but I've been avoiding doing that. It almost seems like "dipstick hands/feet" would actually be the term for when the end of the hand/foot is a different color from the rest, closer to what "fingerless/toeless" is being used for now, as furrin_gok said.

...Maybe this complication is exactly why we don't use dipstick for hands and feet at all.

dipstick_fingers and dipstick_toes are for when the tips of the digits (after the last knuckle/two knuckles) are a different color from the rest of the digit, fingerless_(marking) and toeless_(marking) are for when all of the finger (and potentially a bit more of the hand/foot) are a seperate color from the hand/foot.
also there's seperate fingerless_gloves_(marking) and toeless_socks_(marking) tags that are for when the main bit of a character's hands or feet (and up to the elbow/knee) are a seperate color from the fingers/toes and the rest of the limb.