The tag implication #64847 flexing_toes -> feet is pending approval.

Reason: Inherently self-explanatory, also the complementary inverse movement, curling_toes, similarly implies feet.

One would expect both of them (and toeless_(markings)) to imply toes instead. Also it seems flexing_toes is only used for one post (by you, and wow that's quite the extensive wiki you've just made)

Flexing also seems to be primarily focused on the named muscles

snpthecat said:
One would expect both of them (and toeless_(markings)) to imply toes instead.

featureless_feet; there's a reason I didn't do that when I made the big foot-based tag BUR.

Huh, so would something like post #2471977 and post #2441870 count as toeless_(marking) and curling_toes respectively?

snpthecat said:
One would expect both of them (and toeless_(markings)) to imply toes instead. Also it seems flexing_toes is only used for one post (by you, and wow that's quite the extensive wiki you've just made)

Flexing also seems to be primarily focused on the named muscles

Well, you'll have to excuse my naïveté as a relatively recent addition to the community, I'm mostly working off of inferences from what I've observed so far while being here. I had the same impulse as you regarding the implication of toes versus feet, but then in looking around the adjacent tag structures I observed several instances like curling_toes where obvious implications that are one taxonomic level distant were absent in favor of those that were two levels removed (grandparents tags, if you will), and thought that I would simply follow that logic here as well. You're also correct about my having created the tag and the wiki entry for it; again, I was just acting on what I saw as an oversight in the data structure and trying to correct it as thoroughly as I knew how to.

I confess I'm tempted to be a bit defensive in my response based on your decision to already downvote my first attempt at anything like this here, but decades of working on large collaborative projects has taught me to assume good faith and never trust first impressions, haha. I don't have an agenda here and was just trying to be an asset to the community when I saw an existing tag for a specific action that has a complementary inverse that lacked a tag as well. If there are stricter covenants governing doing so, I did not see them in the review of the documentation before I acted, and would welcome any insights into such by more experienced hands.

Edit: I forgot to address your point about the focus on named muscles among the tags related to "flexing." I count 15 tags in that set that reference a specific named muscle or bilateral muscle pair, and 11 that reference a limb or other external anatomical structure(s)/muscle group not at all unlike toes. While I'll grant that the named muscle tags seem more populated, that doesn't seem to be a prohibitive ratio on its face. I also confess that I'm now confused as to whether I simply need to be advocating in this thread for the implication listed in the subject, or for having created the tag in the first place. Again, any clarification would be most appreciated.

sockypaws said:
Well, you'll have to excuse my naïveté as a relatively recent addition to the community, I'm mostly working off of inferences from what I've observed so far while being here. I had the same impulse as you regarding the implication of toes versus feet, but then in looking around the adjacent tag structures I observed several instances like curling_toes where obvious implications that are one taxonomic level distant were absent in favor of those that were two levels removed (grandparents tags, if you will), and thought that I would simply follow that logic here as well. You're also correct about my having created the tag and the wiki entry for it; again, I was just acting on what I saw as an oversight in the data structure and trying to correct it as thoroughly as I knew how to.

About choosing to imply to feet instead of toes:
I have not and am not faulting you for choosing to follow prior precedent, and I commend the fact you did do your research. It is also nice that you've contributed and made an effort to rectify the issues you've seen (most users don't touch tag edits, much less wikis).

A recommendation I have regarding writing wikis is that it should mainly contain what the tagger should be looking out for in the post, when it should be tagged, examples (thumbnails of posts where it is displayed prominently), and related tags (which you have done).

I confess I'm tempted to be a bit defensive in my response based on your decision to already downvote my first attempt at anything like this here, but decades of working on large collaborative projects has taught me to assume good faith and never trust first impressions, haha. I don't have an agenda here and was just trying to be an asset to the community when I saw an existing tag for a specific action that has a complementary inverse that lacked a tag as well. If there are stricter covenants governing doing so, I did not see them in the review of the documentation before I acted, and would welcome any insights into such by more experienced hands.

Downvotes are not directed at the user. People usually vote on the merit of the AIBUR, and purely that. Anyone who opposes it can bring up their concerns as a reply (if you agree, you are less likely to say something, unless opinion is visibly split). If it did bother you, I have amended my vote to meh as my main concerns about the BUR have been reduced.

Regarding the creation of (general) tags, there are some standards: It must be taggable by TWYS, should not be a duplicate of an existing tag, and it must not be excessively specific (like two_tone_fingerless_elbow_gloves). These of course, have been met.

Edit: I forgot to address your point about the focus on named muscles among the tags related to "flexing." I count 15 tags in that set that reference a specific named muscle or bilateral muscle pair, and 11 that reference a limb or other external anatomical structure(s)/muscle group not at all unlike toes. While I'll grant that the named muscle tags seem more populated, that doesn't seem to be a prohibitive ratio on its face.

I also confess that I'm now confused as to whether I simply need to be advocating in this thread for the implication listed in the subject, or for having created the tag in the first place. Again, any clarification would be most appreciated.

If you're creating the tag from scratch you do have to do both, especially if it deviates from some of the naming standards (which was one of my concerns). I also recommend avoiding using self-explanatory in AIBUR requests.

-
To be frank, I regret having interacted in this thread. I downvote because of a flaw I've perceived and made my observations, and that seems to have gotten you quite defensive.