The tag implication #47130 scuted_feet -> scutes has been approved.

Reason: scutes tag would always apply to posts tagged scuted_feet

EDIT: The tag implication scuted_feet -> scutes (forum #345659) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

If you're proposing multiple related implications, aliases, or category changes, you should just make a BUR instead. topic #35404 topic #35405 topic #35406

The bulk update request #3328 is pending approval.

create implication avian_feet (13845) -> scuted_feet (524)
create implication scuted_feet (524) -> feet (579996)

Reason: On the topic of scuted_feet, though, what should be done about these related tags; bird_feet & avian_feet? They should probably be either:

1. both aliased to scuted_feet
or
2. bird_feet aliased to avian_feet, with it implying scuted_feet

In topic #34931 gattonero2001 brings up a great point that the tag avian_feet would be better than bird_feet because you can use the term avian to describe a creature that is bird-like, even if it isn't necessarily a proper bird. But is the distinction between avian scuted feet and other forms of scuted feet necessary?

trevortheyeen said:
But is the distinction between avian scuted feet and other forms of scuted feet necessary?

Bird feet:
post #2804018 post #1370270

Scuted feet that aren't really bird feet:
post #2877912 post #1017517

Crocodilian skin is also scuted, including the feet, although I'm not sure if people would rather have them tagged with the relevant scute tags, or just exclude them.

Either way, given that foot fetishes are a fairly common thing, I'd say that, yes, the distinction is probably necessary.

vulkalu said:
Bird feet:
post #2804018 post #1370270

Scuted feet that aren't really bird feet:
post #2877912 post #1017517

Crocodilian skin is also scuted, including the feet, although I'm not sure if people would rather have them tagged with the relevant scute tags, or just exclude them.

Either way, given that foot fetishes are a fairly common thing, I'd say that, yes, the distinction is probably necessary.

Good points, and I agree. Coming back to it now after thinking about it I think the avian feet tag is more analogous to paws vs hooves vs humanoid feet, and that avian feet being scuted feet is along the same lines as paws having pawpads. It's just a characteristic of said type of feet, not a replacement tag for it.

Also tangentially related, but I kinda want to start a discussion thread on foot fetish vs paw fetish. I fucking love paws but hate hate hate humanoid feet, and it kinda sucks that all the foot fetish tags have the paw variations aliased to them. I can't be the only one that thinks they should be separated, right? I mean it would make sense if the paw variations implicate the foot ones, but the straight up alias kinda sucks

trevortheyeen said:
Good points, and I agree. Coming back to it now after thinking about it I think the avian feet tag is more analogous to paws vs hooves vs humanoid feet, and that avian feet being scuted feet is along the same lines as paws having pawpads. It's just a characteristic of said type of feet, not a replacement tag for it.

That's the point of the avian/bird feet tag, yes. It has a lot more to do with the shape than just what feature covers them. Removing the tag would make it more difficult to find creatures (not just birds) with avian-style feet, especially since bird feet aren't always drawn with visible scutes, so using scuted_feet wouldn't be accurate 100% of the time anyways. I also feel like the tag serves as a decent catch-all for anisodactyl, zygodactyl, and webbed_feet on birds, among other weird bird foot types we don't have tags for, without having to type all of that to find all of them. Especially since they can't be implicated directly to bird/avian feet, since other creatures can and do have those foot types (notably, chameleons are zygodactyl, and of course, things like otters, amphibians, or aquatic dragons can have webbed feet).

trevortheyeen said:
Also tangentially related, but I kinda want to start a discussion thread on foot fetish vs paw fetish. I fucking love paws but hate hate hate humanoid feet, and it kinda sucks that all the foot fetish tags have the paw variations aliased to them. I can't be the only one that thinks they should be separated, right? I mean it would make sense if the paw variations implicate the foot ones, but the straight up alias kinda sucks

Well... humanoid_feet is a tag, you could negate that from searches, or blacklist it, and any posts that pop up with them in the picture you could add the tag to so they don't show up in future searches. Personally, I've never searched for any foot fetish content, so I'm not entirely sure if there's anything else that could help, and I don't have much of an opinion on the current aliases.

trevortheyeen said:
1. both aliased to scuted_feet
or
2. bird_feet aliased to avian_feet, with it implying scuted_feet

In regards to 2, we should probably avoid <species>_<bodypart>. We've had issues before with things like lion_tail or cow_tail being used basically to mean lion+tail or cow+tail as you couldn't really know by just the tail itself what it belonged to. Using more general tags like avian_<bodypart> also has an issue where there's many different types of avians that have different looking body parts, meaning little consistency and people end up using it to mean avian+<bodypart> regardless of how the body part itself looks.

Also some <species>_<bodypart> tags are supposed to be for humanoids only, like fox_ears intended to be for a fox humanoid that has ears like a fox (since a humanoid can otherwise lack fox ears and still be a fox humanoid because of a tail or feet or something). So having some such tags apply to anthros will increase the amount of confusion there already is with such tags.

It's better to tag what the thing actually is when it's used generically. Like tail_tuft for a lion or cow-like tail that has a tuft at the end, or fluffy_tail and dipstick_tail for a fox-like tail. So for those kind of avian-like feet, it's best to tag that kind of anatomy where there's one clawed toe facing "backwards" from the others, instead of just terming it "avian feet".

vulkalu said:
That's the point of the avian/bird feet tag, yes. It has a lot more to do with the shape than just what feature covers them. Removing the tag would make it more difficult to find creatures (not just birds) with avian-style feet, especially since bird feet aren't always drawn with visible scutes, so using scuted_feet wouldn't be accurate 100% of the time anyways. I also feel like the tag serves as a decent catch-all for anisodactyl, zygodactyl, and webbed_feet on birds, among other weird bird foot types we don't have tags for, without having to type all of that to find all of them. Especially since they can't be implicated directly to bird/avian feet, since other creatures can and do have those foot types (notably, chameleons are zygodactyl, and of course, things like otters, amphibians, or aquatic dragons can have webbed feet).

Yeah, I definitely realized my mistake after thinking about it for a bit, and you bring up lots of great points. Not all bird/avian characters depicted will have scuted feet so not a good implication to make.

I agree! It seems like we're on the same page, like you said, the bird_feet tag is kinda just a catch-all tag of different types of feet that bird characters have. Just like hooves encompasses both hooves like what deer have and what horses have, and paws covers lots of different types of paws like canine, ursid, feline, and etc. They may have their differences but they're close enough to warrant grouping together.

vulkalu said:
Well... humanoid_feet is a tag, you could negate that from searches, or blacklist it, and any posts that pop up with them in the picture you could add the tag to so they don't show up in future searches. Personally, I've never searched for any foot fetish content, so I'm not entirely sure if there's anything else that could help, and I don't have much of an opinion on the current aliases.

True, but there are SO many pics that humanoid_feet aren't properly tagged on, and on top of that there are lots of weird in-between feet that aren't fully humanoid but aren't paws, so that's just another hurdle. It kinda sucks having to do workarounds when it could just be it's own tag, only including paws.

Admittedly though I'm just being whiny about it, and I'm sure there's probably not that many paw purists that share my affinity for paws and dislike of feet. 😅

watsit said:
In regards to 2, we should probably avoid <species>_<bodypart>. We've had issues before with things like lion_tail or cow_tail being used basically to mean lion+tail or cow+tail as you couldn't really know by just the tail itself what it belonged to. Using more general tags like avian_<bodypart> also has an issue where there's many different types of avians that have different looking body parts, meaning little consistency and people end up using it to mean avian+<bodypart> regardless of how the body part itself looks.

Also some <species>_<bodypart> tags are supposed to be for humanoids only, like fox_ears intended to be for a fox humanoid that has ears like a fox (since a humanoid can otherwise lack fox ears and still be a fox humanoid because of a tail or feet or something). So having some such tags apply to anthros will increase the amount of confusion there already is with such tags.

It's better to tag what the thing actually is when it's used generically. Like tail_tuft for a lion or cow-like tail that has a tuft at the end, or fluffy_tail and dipstick_tail for a fox-like tail. So for those kind of avian-like feet, it's best to tag that kind of anatomy where there's one clawed toe facing "backwards" from the others, instead of just terming it "avian feet".

I agree, the bird_feet tag has a very wide usage as essentially just bird+feet. When it comes to the "backwards" toes, Vulkalu mentioned some great tags I actually didn't even knew existed! zygodactyl and anisodactyl

trevortheyeen said:
I agree, the bird_feet tag has a very wide usage as essentially just bird+feet. When it comes to the "backwards" toes, Vulkalu mentioned some great tags I actually didn't even knew existed! zygodactyl and anisodactyl

Hmm, those might be a bit of an issue as they are. They both imply 4_toes, but it's possible to show them in a way where you don't see all 4 toes:
post #3467906
You can see the one backwards toe of an anisodactyl foot, but no front toes, so 4_toes would be inapplicable.

There could also be forms where it's just two front toes and one back:
post #3544344 post #3536669 post #3503198
Which would be 3_toes, not 4_toes, despite having the same scuted feet with backwards toe.

Or four front toes and one back:
post #1801994
A total of 5_toes, not 4_toes.

watsit said:
Hmm, those might be a bit of an issue as they are. They both imply 4_toes, but it's possible to show them in a way where you don't see all 4 toes:
post #3467906
You can see the one backwards toe of an anisodactyl foot, but no front toes, so 4_toes would be inapplicable.

Honestly my first thought when I saw that was that anisodactyl wouldn't apply because you can't see the rest of the foot. The way it's cut off makes it seem more like an ankle spike rather than a toe, but maybe that's just me. Really, there could probably be a tag for backwards facing toes (not just for anisodactyl, but also other toe arrangements).

As for your other examples... I'd go into semantics on how none of those are actually anisodactyl... but this is furry art. I'm just not sure how strict the site as a whole would view the various *dactyl tags. Should they be as accurate as possible to qualify, or do examples like those count as "close enough"? And if so, does that mean cases like syndactyly should be swept under anisodactyl, due to having three toes forwards and one back, despite the fact that syndactyly is defined by having two of the toes fused partway? I can understand going either way with it, although personally, if I'm searching anisodactyl, which I have before, I'd expect the typical 4-toe structure.

vulkalu said:
Honestly my first thought when I saw that was that anisodactyl wouldn't apply because you can't see the rest of the foot.

Sure, but if the point is to tag an anatomical feature itself, rather than tagging certain features with an association to birds or avians (when the same feature can appear on non-birds/avians, and some birds/avians can have different features), we would need a tag that could apply even if it's not completely accurate, just close enough.

trevortheyeen said:
When it comes to the "backwards" toes, Vulkalu mentioned some great tags I actually didn't even knew existed! zygodactyl and anisodactyl

watsit said:
Hmm, those might be a bit of an issue as they are. They both imply 4_toes, but it's possible to show them in a way where you don't see all 4 toes:
[Examples]

How about simply a "backward_toe" tag?

The two Wikipedia entries on avian toe arrangements (1, 2) describe avian toes as being either forward- or backward-pointing. Similarly, some scientific publications refer to these toes as being backward-facing (rather than backward-pointing -- cf. Lumeij et al., 2009 ).

In any case, "backward_toe" is concise and accurate without implying a specific number of toes, unlike "zygodactyl" and "anisodactyl".

watsit said:
Sure, but if the point is to tag an anatomical feature itself, rather than tagging certain features with an association to birds or avians (when the same feature can appear on non-birds/avians, and some birds/avians can have different features), we would need a tag that could apply even if it's not completely accurate, just close enough.

My problem with that is that simply having a backwards-facing toe isn't unique to anisodactyl, it's just that that toe arrangement is what most people are familiar with, since a large number of bird species have that. I personally don't feel like simply having a singular backwards toe should be immediate grounds to add that tag. I do, however, think that there should be another tag to group all of them together, hence my comment of the possibility of a tag that specifies when a character has a backwards-facing toe, regardless of toe count or visibility of the foot.

I'm aware of the feature being present on non-avian characters (in particular, I see it on eastern_dragons with some amount of frequency), but my point is that the backwards toe, alone, is not what defines anisodactyl, it's the toe arrangement as a whole with all four toes, if we're speaking strictly of how the term is used outside of e621.

The tag implication scuted_feet -> scutes (forum #345659) has been approved by @bitWolfy.