The tag implication #47424 toeless_(marking) -> dipstick_toes has been rejected.

Reason: I just feel like it's common sense.
I mean, if a character has a tag toeless_(marking) then that'd imply that the toes are a different color from the rest of the feet as well as the leg.
While (marking) when refering to (toeless) means that the leg has an aesthetic where the body marking of the leg is in a fashion of having socks / stockings / leggings / etc. imprinted to the characters design.

Sometimes, if not most times Loona is a clear representation of this. Sometimes she's wearing black stockings and sometimes is actually just leg markings.

EDIT: The tag implication toeless_(marking) -> dipstick_toes (forum #349813) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.

Shouldn't this be an alias, one way or the other? and also dipstick_fingers/fingerless_(marking)?
Since dipstick_toes doesn't have a wiki page, assuming an analogy with dipstick_tail, there wouldn't seem to be any difference.

toeless_socks_(marking), toeless_(marking), and dipstick_toes all seem to be essentially the same thing, so toeless_(marking) and dipstick_toes should be aliased to toeless_socks_(marking) to be alongside socks_(marking), IMO. Same for dipstick_fingers and fingerless_(marking), which should be aliased to fingerless_gloves_(marking) to be alongside gloves_(marking).

watsit said:
toeless_socks_(marking), toeless_(marking), and dipstick_toes all seem to be essentially the same thing, so toeless_(marking) and dipstick_toes should be aliased to toeless_socks_(marking) to be alongside socks_(marking), IMO. Same for dipstick_fingers and fingerless_(marking), which should be aliased to fingerless_gloves_(marking) to be alongside gloves_(marking).

toeless_socks_(marking) is supposed to be the combination of toeless_(marking) and socks_(marking), i.e., toes are a different color from rest of feet, which are a different color from the rest of the leg (toes and rest of leg may be the same color or not; the point is there are two sets of boundaries in the coloration).

fingerless_gloves_(marking) is the same, mutatis mutandis, for hands.

^{_{That being said, there's a disturbingly high proportion of mistags in the results for toeless_(marking) socks_(marking). I didn't think this was that complicated??}}

deleuzian_cattery said:
toeless_socks_(marking) is supposed to be the combination of toeless_(marking) and socks_(marking), i.e., toes are a different color from rest of feet, which are a different color from the rest of the leg (toes and rest of leg may be the same color or not; the point is there are two sets of boundaries in the coloration).

Except socks don't have to cover the leg, they can cover just the foot. socks_(marking) can indicate the foot+toes are a different color from the leg, along with also meaning the foot, toes, and lower leg are a different color from the upper leg/thigh area. So toeless_socks_(marking) can mean the toes, foot, and leg are each a different color (or the toes and leg are the same color, which is different from the foot), or the foot and lower leg are a different color from the toes.

Same as for gloves/hands/fingers. Gloves can cover just the hands+fingers, or the hands+fingers+forearm. gloves_(marking) may or may not have the forearm the same color as the hands+fingers. So fingerless_gloves_(marking) may or may not have the hands the same color as the forearm, while the fingers are different from the hand.

watsit said:
Except socks don't have to cover the leg, they can cover just the foot. socks_(marking) can indicate the foot+toes are a different color from the leg, along with also meaning the foot, toes, and lower leg are a different color from the upper leg/thigh area. So toeless_socks_(marking) can mean the toes, foot, and leg are each a different color (or the toes and leg are the same color, which is different from the foot), or the foot and lower leg are a different color from the toes.

Same as for gloves/hands/fingers. Gloves can cover just the hands+fingers, or the hands+fingers+forearm. gloves_(marking) may or may not have the forearm the same color as the hands+fingers. So fingerless_gloves_(marking) may or may not have the hands the same color as the forearm, while the fingers are different from the hand.

You're not saying anything different from what I said.

deleuzian_cattery said:
You're not saying anything different from what I said.

Then how is toeless_socks_(marking) different from toeless_(marking), if both only indicate the toes are a different color from the foot?

watsit said:
Then how is toeless_socks_(marking) different from toeless_(marking), if both only indicate the toes are a different color from the foot?

They don't. toeless_(marking) only indicates that the toes are a different color from the foot. toeless_socks_(marking) additionally requires a second boundary in coloration somewhere on the leg, it doesn't matter exactly where. It's a subset of toeless_(marking), specifically the intersection with socks_(marking).

post #3669701
Front paws are socks, back paws are toeless, none are toeless socks.

post #3701326
This is tagged both toeless_(marking) and socks_(marking), and I'd say the latter is wrong. Socks (clothing-socks) may go up to the thigh but not all the way to the inguinal canal like that. That's more like reverse countershading.

post #3616698
This isn't tagged toeless_socks_(marking) (or even socks_(marking)) but it should be.

deleuzian_cattery said:
toeless_socks_(marking) additionally requires a second boundary in coloration somewhere on the leg, it doesn't matter exactly where.

That's not required for socks_(marking) (nor is it necessary for socks to go up the leg, instead wrapping around the ankle/achilles tendon ), so that distinction is very easily lost if it's described as socks+toeless. It can also get ambiguous whether the boundary's on the leg or foot (e.g. post #638729 or post #3704008), or if there's a second boundary at all given disembodied_foot. I don't think it's a necessary distinction whether or not there's a second boundary on the foot/ankle area vs the leg for toeless_socks_(marking), since socks_(marking) doesn't distinguish like that.

Honestly, when I first read dipstick_toes, I interpreted it as the toes being dipstick, in the same sense as dipstick_tail. The color of the foot would be irrelevant, because the toes themselves would be two-tone. We don't tag dipstick_tail when the whole tail is one uniform different color from the body, and similarly, the rest of the tail can be the same color as the body, as long as it has the characteristic dipstick marking.

Fingerless/toeless markings I usually see as the fingers and toes being one uniform color separate from the hand or foot (ignoring accents like claws or pawpads), barring exceptions like when each digit is a different rainbow color, or something like that, but it's still usually the whole digit. I'd grab example posts, but short on time.

Point is, that's how the tag names sound like they should be used to me, but it seems that's not how dipstick_toes has been used in practice.

watsit said:
toeless_socks_(marking), toeless_(marking), and dipstick_toes all seem to be essentially the same thing, so toeless_(marking) and dipstick_toes should be aliased to toeless_socks_(marking) to be alongside socks_(marking), IMO. Same for dipstick_fingers and fingerless_(marking), which should be aliased to fingerless_gloves_(marking) to be alongside gloves_(marking).

I agree that they should be aliased, but dipstick_fingers/dipstick_toes seems to be the better tag in my opinion. Not only is is shorter and more concise, but it's clearer too.

Fingerless_gloves_(marking) makes it seem like the fingers should match the arm and its only the palm/hand that's a different color, much like if you put on a pair of fingerless gloves and looked at your hands. Your fingers would still be the same color as your arm. Same thing applies to the toes/socks situation

The tag implication toeless_(marking) -> dipstick_toes (forum #349813) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.

trevortheyeen said:
I agree that they should be aliased, but dipstick_fingers/dipstick_toes seems to be the better tag in my opinion. Not only is is shorter and more concise, but it's clearer too.

I feel like dipstick_fingers should be for when the marking is only on the finger tip
post #3898196 post #3327709

where as fingerless_(marking) should be for when the marking covers most or all of the finger
post #109434 post #3025300