The tag alias #73972 paw_job -> footjob has been rejected.

Reason: Pawjob is already aliased. Has seen extensive use over the years.

EDIT: The tag alias paw_job -> footjob (forum #425225) has been rejected by @Labra.

labra said:
Pawjob is already aliased.

Surprising, since "paw" can refer to hands/forepaws rather than feet/hindpaws (one of the reasons I'd like paw tags aliased away; the other being people can and do interpret it as just a cutesy furry term for any hands or feet on anthros, including humanoid and without pawpads). At least two current uses of paw_job seem to refer to hands/forepaws and not the feet:
post #3760650 post #4008320
I wonder how many mistags have been caused by the pawjob alias.

watsit said:
Surprising, since "paw" can refer to hands/forepaws rather than feet/hindpaws (one of the reasons I'd like paw tags aliased away; the other being people can and do interpret it as just a cutesy furry term for any hands or feet on anthros, including humanoid and without pawpads). At least two current uses of paw_job seem to refer to hands/forepaws and not the feet:
post #3760650 post #4008320
I wonder how many mistags have been caused by the pawjob alias.

I'm not sure if we'd wanna tag your first example as anything other that footjob, though, since the front paws of quadruped ferals are still very much feet. But I definitely agree that this has more than likely led to a few mistags over time, so let's try something else.

The tag alias paw_job -> footjob (forum #425225) has been rejected by @Labra.

The bulk update request #9760 is pending approval.

remove alias pawjob (0) -> footjob (17471)
create alias paw_job (27) -> pawjob_(disambiguation) (0)
create alias rear_pawjob (25) -> pawjob_(disambiguation) (0)
create alias pawjobs (0) -> pawjob_(disambiguation) (0)
create alias self_pawjob (2) -> pawjob_(disambiguation) (0)
change category pawjob_(disambiguation) (0) -> invalid

Reason: Option 2: Disambiguation.

Rear_pawjob might be an okay alias for footjob, since it very obviously refers to hindpaws, but let's not chance it.

Followup:
alias pawjob -> pawjob_(disambiguation)

labra said:
I'm not sure if we'd wanna tag your first example as anything other that footjob, though, since the front paws of quadruped ferals are still very much feet.

That gets tricky. For something like
post #5194661
I don't think that's what people expect to get for raised_leg and leg_grab. Or for
post #5036661
to be foot_grab instead of hand_holding. The forepaws are better treated as hands and arms rather than a second set of legs and feet, as it also helps distinguish things like hindlimb claws only:
post #5195793
from forelimb claws only:
post #5190924
and both:
post #5164123
If they're all just toe claws, they can't be distinguished. And it helps avoid ambiguity when dealing with different types of stances and forepaws, like
post #4475984
or
post #5180971
At what point does it stop being feet and toe claws, and become hand and finger claws, when attached to forelimbs of quadrupeds?

watsit said:
...

Of course it gets tricky with all the different degrees of anthromorphization and fictional species with varying levels of realistic anatomy, there's no one-size-fits-all answer, but I certainly disagree with you that something like post #5164123 should be tagged with finger claws. If this counts as finger claws, should this then be tagged with 4 toes and 4 fingers as well?

labra said:
Of course it gets tricky with all the different degrees of anthromorphization and fictional species with varying levels of realistic anatomy, there's no one-size-fits-all answer, but I certainly disagree with you that something like post #5164123 should be tagged with finger claws. If this counts as finger claws, should this then be tagged with 4 toes and 4 fingers as well?

Yes, I don't see why not. More useful than saying post #4963687 is 4_toes + 3_toes + solo, which gives no indication of whether its the forelimbs or hindlimbs that are 3 or 4, or whether one hindlimb has 3 toes while the other hindlimb has 4 asymmetrically, and the forepaws are out of view. Just as it would be a disservice to searchability to say
post #5193546 and post #2601294
are both raised_leg. Or
post #4963687 and post #3260937
are both spread_legs.

watsit said:
Yes, I don't see why not. It would be a disservice to searchability to say
post #5193546 and post #2601294
are both raised_leg. Or
post #4963687 and post #3260937
are both spread_legs.

And I'd say it's a disservice to searchabilty to sweepingly call the front limbs of any feral animal arms and their digits fingers, so I guess we just have a fundamental disagreement on the definition of those terms.

The front limbs of a feral animal are analogous to the arms of a human or anthro. The difference is that the feral habitually walks on those front limbs whereas a human or anthro don't. Sometimes, the feral even uses those forelimbs the same way a human would, and of course, a human can (awkwardly) go on all fours and use their arms like feral forelimbs. For ease of tagging, I agree that we ought to tag feral forelimbs as arms with hands and fingers.

clawstripe said:
The front limbs of a feral animal are analogous to the arms of a human or anthro. The difference is that the feral habitually walks on those front limbs whereas a human or anthro don't. Sometimes, the feral even uses those forelimbs the same way a human would, and of course, a human can (awkwardly) go on all fours and use their arms like feral forelimbs. For ease of tagging, I agree that we ought to tag feral forelimbs as arms with hands and fingers.

I think we're gonna need some sort of (staff?) consensus on this eventually, then, because the current wiki definitions certainly don't seem to support that. For example, finger claws of course implies fingers and that wiki entry then explicitly links to humanoid hands with no mention of paws etc. Frankly, this is the first time I've consciously seen people define or tag it that way on here, so excuse my confusion.