Tag implication: the_pose -> barefoot

create implication the_pose -> barefoot

Link to implication

Wiki says:
Subject can be clothed or unclothed, but their feet must be bare as this is a term coined by foot fetish enthusiasts to express feet in a specific way.

The tag implication the_pose -> barefoot has been rejected.

create implication the_pose -> on_stomach
create implication the_pose -> barefoot

Link to request

Stepping back a bit, "the pose" is a really terrible tag name. (I feel like we nuked it before)

It's completely undescriptive and its wiki references nothing other than the author's word.

I have no idea where this derives from, but it seems that this term is used.
Just googling this term gives me pics of exact that pose.

Gollgagh said:

Stepping back a bit, "the pose" is a really terrible tag name. (I feel like we nuked it before)

It's completely undescriptive and its wiki references nothing other than the author's word.

topic #11884

Dropping it?
Hmm, this tag seems to require 3 tags. At least.
On stomach, barefoot and maybe legs up (I'd rather use feet up for those, but that's not so important. And on stomach + legs doesn't say, that the chara has bare feet :P.
So having a tag tht reduces three tags to one is not that bad. And if the name sounds "stupid" is not a really good reason.

Provence said:

Dropping it?
Hmm, this tag seems to require 3 tags. At least.
On stomach, barefoot and maybe legs up (I'd rather use feet up for those, but that's not so important. And on stomach + legs doesn't say, that the chara has bare feet :P.
So having a tag tht reduces three tags to one is not that bad. And if the name sounds "stupid" is not a really good reason.

I concur.

+1 for on_stomach, but sometimes the character's feet aren't visible in the image (post #2301968).

Also, should post #2270437 be tagged with the_pose ? The character in this one is clearly wearing shoes.

Nitrogen09 said:

+1 for on_stomach, but sometimes the character's feet aren't visible in the image (post #2301968).

Also, should post #2270437 be tagged with the_pose ? The character in this one is clearly wearing shoes.

Well, if the feet are not visible, then it seems that this tag can't apply. I added this to my upload wit Yuudachi because I thought I can see a bit of her feet, but this isn't the case here. So I strike out both tags (barefoot + the pose)
As for the second: The definition says they have to be bare, so noc legwear, boots or other footwear.

Provence said:

and maybe legs up (I'd rather use feet up for those, but that's not so important.

What is "feet up" for, anyway? It seems redundant. "Leg(s) up" is better as the feet (as we can see in one post linked already) are not always visible.

EB said:

What is "feet up" for, anyway? It seems redundant. "Leg(s) up" is better as the feet (as we can see in one post linked already) are not always visible.

Probably yes, when you ask back^^. Maybe I'll change it to leg(s) up on the weekend.

I'm currently leaning on rejecting these implications based on Nitrogen09's example. A pose should not be bound by the character's attire, so whether they wear shoes or not should not be a consideration on whether this tag is or isn't applicable.

NWF_Renim said:

I'm currently leaning on rejecting these implications based on Nitrogen09's example. A pose should not be bound by the character's attire, so whether they wear shoes or not should not be a consideration on whether this tag is or isn't applicable.

I think not wearing any legwear as a requirement is necessary though, otherwise, this tag and on_stomach legs_up would basically become the same thing.

Doesn't change that a pose shouldn't be bound by their attire.

Using a tag to cover multiple tags should be more of a consideration that it is binding like tags, such as combining 3 or more articles of clothing or combining 3 or more physical traits together.

There really isn't a need for this tag, bare feet account for over 50% of the results of on_stomach legs_up and someone looking for these kinds of posts won't have a hard time finding them amongst the results of this 2 tag search.

We can do things much simpler by approving this one here. One tag against two tags. That it is called the pose doesn't make it a pose. It's a posture (on stomach +leg(s) up) combined with attire (barefoot/no legwear). You're rejecting it because of an unlicky chosen name, the purpose still remain, though, since if one knows about this, it's clear what the searcher is about to get.

Bringing this back up since it's been a couple weeks without any discussion. The tradition here has always been to reject tags and pools that serve only to replace a multi-tag search, and that's precisely what the pose does. Anyone wanting to search for on_stomach legs_up can already do so and those wanting a more specific search than that are just $20 away.

The bulk update request #698 has been rejected.

As stated it's a replacement for a multi-tag search, and combining pose tags with an outfit tag (or lack of a specific garment) into one tag doesn't make to me. It should either be combing pose tags or combining garment tags, but not both.

create implication the_pose -> on_stomach

Link to request

Because I don't see how this one was actually rejected? All the arguments that led to the rejection of the previous proposal were about barefoot. This one is just proposing one pose tag to implicate another pose tag.

Is post #2387457 still considered the_pose despite not actually lying on anything? If not, then the implication can go through.