The wiki claims that the barefoot tag is used in "Images or animations where a character is not wearing any footwear. Can still be used even if the character is fully_clothed."

However, I don't feel it makes much sense to tag fully nude characters with the barefoot tag the same way you wouldn't tag a fully nude character with something like "exposed midriff". What are your thoughts on this? Should this be clarified in the wiki entry?

ceti said:
The wiki claims that the barefoot tag is used in "Images or animations where a character is not wearing any footwear. Can still be used even if the character is fully_clothed."

However, I don't feel it makes much sense to tag fully nude characters with the barefoot tag the same way you wouldn't tag a fully nude character with something like "exposed midriff". What are your thoughts on this? Should this be clarified in the wiki entry?

I'm not sure, it's not ideal to have redundant tags like topless+pantsless+underwear_only when underwear_only cover.
Or fully nude + exposed_breasts

But... it doesn't sound like a too big of an issue, the redundant tags aren't wrong per se.

m3g4p0n1 said:
I'm not sure, it's not ideal to have redundant tags like topless+pantsless+underwear_only when underwear_only cover.
Or fully nude + exposed_breasts

But... it doesn't sound like a too big of an issue, the redundant tags aren't wrong per se.

They're not wrong per se, but it does make it less useful. If you're actually doing a search for barefoot, you probably aren't looking for completely naked furries, but images where footwear is conspicuous by its absence. It's just like bottomless, which is specifically for characters who are still wearing tops.

vulpes_artifex said:
If you're actually doing a search for barefoot, you probably aren't looking for completely naked furries, but images where footwear is conspicuous by its absence. It's just like bottomless, which is specifically for characters who are still wearing tops.

That's the way I look at it. A character shouldn't be tagged bottomless, topless, exposed_breasts, midriff, barefoot, no_underwear, penis_tip, etc, all at once just because they're fully nude and bearing everything, even though those things are all visible in the image. Barefoot shouldn't be something to tag when a character is nude or bottomless, just like no_underwear shouldn't be tagged when a character is nude or bottomless. It should be for when a character is conspicuously barefoot, that they should normally be wearing footwear in their current state but aren't.

I'm for implementing these changes on the wiki and start tagging images appropriately. However, there are over 750 pages of 'barefoot nude -clothing', and it would take forever to manually revert those. Would it be possible to use some tool to mass-revert those?

ceti said:
I'm for implementing these changes on the wiki and start tagging images appropriately. However, there are over 750 pages of 'barefoot nude -clothing', and it would take forever to manually revert those. Would it be possible to use some tool to mass-revert those?

I thought privileged users had access to tag scripts.

That being said... these mistags must be visually confirmed, automating this might not be the ideal solution.

Since it's been tagged this way for so long it might just be better to search barefoot clothed rather than fix over 750 pages of results.

I don't think this is particularly harmful, "barefoot" would still be used to describe a nude person in real contexts, not only if they were wearing clothes. The comparison to tags like bottomless isn't really correct because the definition of bottomless literally requires a top, otherwise it's just nude.

Not sure I'm a fan of this change myself. If wanted to search for barefoot images, I just want to type in barefoot into the search bar. I don't want to have to type in multiple tags or modifiers to see what's all around.

At the same time, if someone doesn't want to see barefeet, removing that tag kinda defeats the purpose of blacklisting.

leotheairwolf said:
Not sure I'm a fan of this change myself. If wanted to search for barefoot images, I just want to type in barefoot into the search bar.

Can say the same thing about anything. Looking for a character not wearing underwear (fully nude or not), and a user just wants to type in no_underwear. Looking for a character with a visible midriff (fully nude or not, muscular/abs or not), and a user just wants to type in midriff. Looking for a character not wearing any bottom wear (fully nude or not) and a user just wants to type in bottomless. A tag like nude would mean a character is wearing no clothing, so all those things would apply, but tagging all those things would be excessive.

watsit said:
Can say the same thing about anything. Looking for a character not wearing underwear (fully nude or not), and a user just wants to type in no_underwear. Looking for a character with a visible midriff (fully nude or not, muscular/abs or not), and a user just wants to type in midriff. Looking for a character not wearing any bottom wear (fully nude or not) and a user just wants to type in bottomless. A tag like nude would mean a character is wearing no clothing, so all those things would apply, but tagging all those things would be excessive.

Can't say I really see a problem with having all these tags, if someone wants to tag the image with them. The point of tags is to make something easier find or blacklist.

Another issue with that is, nude doesn't always give pictures of someone barefoot, or toppless, and or bottomless. Searching just nude could give results of a top half portrait of a character that's nude. Or a close up of the bottom half nude. It might not always contain all of those things, all together. Or, it could be even a full body nude, where the feet are out of view/not shown.

leotheairwolf said:
Can't say I really see a problem with having all these tags, if someone wants to tag the image with them. The point of tags is to make something easier find or blacklist.

As we've seen with certain people over-tagging posts, though, it's very easy for a tag to end up used wrong with no one catching it (causing otherwise valid tags to become invalid/useless due to excessive misuse), or for tags to be neglected because you can't tell it's not there. As posts' tag lists become unwieldy, more mistakes happen with tags, which makes it harder to find or blacklist things with them.

leotheairwolf said:
Another issue with that is, nude doesn't always give pictures of someone barefoot, or toppless, and or bottomless.

Which raises the question, if you can't tell they're topless and bottomless, how can you tell if they're nude?

watsit said:
Which raises the question, if you can't tell they're topless and bottomless, how can you tell if they're nude?

So would these not be nude then and just need to be tagged as topless?
post #2645728
post #546281

leotheairwolf said:
So would these not be nude then and just need to be tagged as topless?
post #2645728
post #546281

Well, currently topless implies some form of clothing for the bottom half (bottomwear, legwear, footwear), so that would be just as bad as nude in assuming what's down there. That's a good question if those should be tagged nude. I might say no for the bottom one since the context doesn't lead one to conclude he's not wearing pants, shorts, or underwear (it's not uncommon to sit inside at a desk with pants/shorts and no shirt). The first one looks like they're wearing armwarmers, so I don't think they should be tagged nude based on that, but ignoring that, given the context is more sexual, the lack of topwear may lead one to think they're nude in that situation. Though I can see the argument go either way on that.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to think of it in reverse. If they were wearing a shirt in those situations, would you tag them as fully_clothed? Since nude is essentially "fully_unclothed".

Hooray, this argument again! Easily my least favourite thing about TWYS.

leotheairwolf said:
So would these not be nude then and just need to be tagged as topless?
post #2645728
post #546281

I wouldn't tag either as topless. I think the excitement of topless comes from the contrast with the clothed bottom (and vice versa for bottomless), which is why we require a clothed bottom for the toplesss tag to be used. And since the bottom isn't visible in these images, that contrast isn't there.

watsit said:
Perhaps it would be a good idea to think of it in reverse. If they were wearing a shirt in those situations, would you tag them as fully_clothed? Since nude is essentially "fully_unclothed".

If the situation was reversed, it's hard to say.

If we went by the current wiki, nude goes by "a character is not to be assumed to be wearing anything, unless it is seen." While Fully clothed goes by if a character is wearing both top and bottom wear.

If we went by how I felt, if all of a character we see is clothed, I don't see why they wouldn't be considered fully clothed myself.

Something should probably be done about this tag, since I'm now finding it on posts like
post #3793248 post #3793046 post #3792444 post #3792430 post #3802745 post #3802070
Not the kind of feet you'd expect to be wearing shoes. May as well throw it on 99% of the site at this rate.

watsit said:
Something should probably be done about this tag, since I'm now finding it on posts like
post #3793248 post #3793046 post #3792444 post #3792430 post #3802745 post #3802070
Not the kind of feet you'd expect to be wearing shoes. May as well throw it on 99% of the site at this rate.

Definitely shouldn't count for ferals, but post #3802070 seems completely reasonable to me.

Hmm the wiki may need a little work, here's my proposal:

Edit:

m3g4p0n1 said:
Hmm the wiki may need a little work, here's my proposal:

Better than current, I suppose. Though I'm more of the mind that the tag should be for when a character is notably barefoot, that the character would be expected to have footwear as depicted in the image but doesn't. Like how no_underwear is used when a character is wearing pants, shorts, skirt, etc, something you normally wear underwear with, but underwear is notably absent. Many digitigrade feet look normal to me, so not having footwear wouldn't tend to be notable.

Though, even in your proposal, I wouldn't count
post #3185068
due to the fact they're bottomless. Footwear wouldn't look any more fitting than if they were completely nude.

watsit said:
Better than current, I suppose. Though I'm more of the mind that the tag should be for when a character is notably barefoot, that the character would be expected to have footwear as depicted in the image but doesn't. Like how no_underwear is used when a character is wearing pants, shorts, skirt, etc, something you normally wear underwear with, but underwear is notably absent. Many digitigrade feet look normal to me, so not having footwear wouldn't tend to be notable.

Though, even in your proposal, I wouldn't count
post #3185068
due to the fact they're bottomless. Footwear wouldn't look any more fitting than if they were completely nude.

Reworked a little bit, I think the third and fourth images are a bit of a stretch, but for tagging purposes, still fitting for the barefoot tag, and enough to get the point across.

Added mentions to digitigrade and unguligrade tags

I think there are differences in tags like topless and pantsless and tags like barefoot and bare_back:

the -less tags should be used in cases where there are other clothing. Not, when the character is wholly nude. They actually indicate themselves that there are some clothing shown worn except for topwear, for example.

The bare- tags should be used, when a body part is being shown bare. This would be the only way to find images shown an exposed chest for example. Consider a picture with a rear_view to a nude character and a front_view to a fully clothed character. All these come up with "nude front_view". There is also special interest to be found in the distinct searches for "nude barefoot" (images where the feet are shown, which is often not case, as three-quarter_poster images are highly popular) and for "clothed barefoot" / "-nude barefoot".

If a bare chest, breast, back, foot, etc. are depicted, they should be tagged.

I do admit there the be vagueness in the case of anthros and ferals. There is some conflict in e621 policies of a) do not tag defaults (such as 2 arms, white sclera, ...) and b) TWYS. If I SEE bare feet, but I KNOW that the type of character normally doesn't wear footwear, I am per TWYK supposed to not tag barefoot.

urielfrys said:
the -less tags should be used in cases where there are other clothing. Not, when the character is wholly nude. They actually indicate themselves that there are some clothing shown worn except for topwear, for example.

As defined in the wiki. There's nothing inherent to the word "bottomless" that means there must be topwear, that's just the angle this site took because someone looking for a bottomless character specifically isn't likely referring to a fully nude character, as there are enough people that like to see a character lacking bottomwear but wearing topwear (and vice versa for topless).

A wager the same is true for barefoot. Someone looking for a barefoot character specifically isn't likely referring to a character that just happens to not have footwear which you can see if you spot the few pixels representing the foot, as there are enough people that like to see a character lacking footwear when they're expected to wear some.

urielfrys said:
There is also special interest to be found in the distinct searches for "nude barefoot" (images where the feet are shown, which is often not case, as three-quarter_poster images are highly popular) and for "clothed barefoot" / "-nude barefoot".

We already have feet for when a character's feet are visible, which implies either no footwear, or footwear that has holes to see the actual foot. Having barefoot simply be feet with no footwear would be borderline redundant, and leave people who want to see characters notably lacking footwear for the context they're in would have nothing to search (foot_focus wouldn't count since the feet don't have to be the focus).