Currently, there's no proper tags for various hoof configurations, so very little effort is put into differentiating them.

Hooved feet can be divided into three general categories:

1. Ones where only hoof (toe tip) touches the ground
post #1540857 post #914489
2. Ones where toe and ball touch the ground
post #3224132 post #135619
3. Ones where toes, ball and heel touch the ground
post #2587812
3.1 Is similar but different in that toes are fused into a single hoof
post #558599

• unguligrade covers the first one. Implies hooves.
• hooved_toes covers the second and third, as well as ambiguous cases. Implies hooves.
• hooved_digitigrade covers the second. Implies hooved_toes, digitigrade.
• hooved_plantigrade covers the third. Implies hooved_toes, plantigrade.
• articulated_hooves and solid_hooves covers the difference between 3 and 3.1. Implies hooves.

While technically unguligrade applies whether character has hooves or not, I'm not aware of any animal that walks on tiptoes but doesn't have hooves, so I don't believe it should cause any problems.

The bulk update request #2869 is pending approval.

create implication unguligrade (6527) -> hooves (121595)
create implication hooved_toes (1184) -> hooves (121595)
create implication hooved_digitigrade (148) -> hooved_toes (1184)
create implication hooved_digitigrade (148) -> digitigrade (96953)
create implication hooved_plantigrade (778) -> hooved_toes (1184)
create implication hooved_plantigrade (778) -> plantigrade (92848)
create alias hooffoots (0) -> hooved_toes (1184)
create implication articulated_hooves (100) -> hooves (121595)
create implication solid_hooves (120) -> hooves (121595)
create alias unguligrade_legs (1089) -> unguligrade (6527)
create alias unguligrade_feet (69) -> unguligrade (6527)
create alias unguilgrade (0) -> unguligrade (6527)

Reason: Based on topic #34546

After some consideration, I decided to replace hooved_toes (which might suggest that toes are still separate) with toe_hooves, which leaves the room for a single hoof in place of toes, like here:
post #558599

waydence said:
After some consideration, I decided to replace hooved_toes (which might suggest that toes are still separate) with toe_hooves, which leaves the room for a single hoof in place of toes, like here:
post #558599

That's a rather unique scenario, I really think that single-hoof-plantigrades needs its own term.

furrin_gok said:
That's a rather unique scenario, I really think that single-hoof-plantigrades needs its own term.

Not that unique actually :seriousb ~hooves ~hooffoots.
But you're right, they seem to be in minority. I guess I'll revert then.
Will name it single_hooved_plantigrade.

waydence said:
Not that unique actually :seriousb ~hooves ~hooffoots.
But you're right, they seem to be in minority. I guess I'll revert then.
Will name it single_hooved_plantigrade.

I don't mean that as "one of a kind", I mean "completely different" unique.

furrin_gok said:
I don't mean that as "one of a kind", I mean "completely different" unique.

Thought about it some more, and came up with articulated_hooves.
post #1075440 post #1322373
First ones can be wiggled, second ones, not so much. Call them solid_hooves?

Will be handy for hooved_hands and hooved_fingers, which are confused quite frequently and need a clean up.

Also, there's cleft_hooves. Will single_hooves be useful as it's counterpart?

waydence said:
Also, there's cleft_hooves. Will single_hooves be useful as it's counterpart?

I doubt that would be a good idea. Single_hooves would pretty much be synonymous with equid. Even the mythical single-toed hoofers on e621 are tagged as equids. The only non-equid I know of with only a single hoof on each foot is the litoptern (a type of South American hoofer) Thoatherium, and while I knew it existed, I had to look it up to get the name. It's not going to be worth creating a single_hooves tag just in case someone maybe, possibly, might post a Thoatherium or two that would only get lost among the many, many horses, zebras, donkeys, unicorns, pegasi, sileni, hippogrifs, centaurs, and I don't know what else.

clawstripe said:
I doubt that would be a good idea.

Fair enough.

Are articulated_hooves and solid_hooves fine then? What about everyrhing else?

I get that people don't care about hooves as much, but I'd hate to start tagging things, only then to find a glaring flaw in the system.

waydence said:
Fair enough.

Are articulated_hooves and solid_hooves fine then? What about everyrhing else?

I get that people don't care about hooves as much, but I'd hate to start tagging things, only then to find a glaring flaw in the system.

Makes enough sense to me. Solid might not be the best word but it works for now.

Added

alias unguligrade_legs -> unguligrade
alias unguligrade_feet -> unguligrade
alias unguilgrade -> unguligrade

as they are exactly the same thing.

Not sure if unguligrade_anthro -> unguligrade is a good idea (some discussion in topic #31523), but can't do anything until topic #25138 is rejected.

Bump! Is it possible to take another look at approving this BUR, please?

The existence of the unguligrade_legs tag (and the much-less-used unguligrade_feet tag) has confused me for a while. Those tags seem redundant to me, because the single-word tag unguligrade already covers a creature's leg/foot structure and walking/standing posture. The wiki page for unguligrade links to the wiki page for unguilgrade legs under "See Also", but those wiki pages don't help explain why you might want to use one but not the other.

As far as I know, the words "unguligrade", "plantigrade" and "digitigrade" only have useful meanings when they're referring to the posture/stance of the limbs on which a creature typically supports its weight. So it makes sense to me that for hooved upper limbs, we don't use the U-word, but instead use the tags hoof hands and hooved_fingertips, which just describe the hard physical feature without saying anything about how they're used in a standing posture.

I know that there are some situations where it's useful to have a general body part tag, and then additional tags that get more specific about upper and lower limbs (e.g. how we have a claws parent tag alongside tags for toe_claws and finger_claws).

In this case, why might we want to have separate unguligrade and unguligrade legs tags? AFAIK the answer is: to allow room for situations where a picture shows a creature that is unguligrade, but the limbs with an unguligrade posture are not its legs.

Now, is that situation ever likely to arise in a picture on this site? I suppose you could have a creature with hooved_fingertips that uses them for walking_on_hands, perhaps - would it be useful to keep the unguligrade arms tag valid and available for situations like that? Or maybe someone could design a weird creature that balances on and hops around on a hooved tail - such a picture might be tagged with unguligrade and unguligrade tail, but not unguligrade legs!

But features like that are rare. For the vast majority of images, unguligrade legs can be safely assumed to be equivalent to unguligrade. So the main reason I support this BUR being implemented is for the simplifiction provided by the "unguligrade_legs -> unguligrade" and "unguligrade_feet -> unguligrade" aliases.

waydence said:
Not sure if unguligrade_anthro -> unguligrade is a good idea (some discussion in topic #31523), but can't do anything until topic #25138 is rejected.

I see that there was discussion of unguligrade_anthro about 6 months ago in topic #39525.

I don't have a strong opinion about that. But I am curious to know: why does unguligrade anthro get its own tag, but not unguligrade feral or unguligrade taur?

+1 for aliasing away unguligrade_legs, it means exactly the same thing as unguligrade